Opinion ID: 1439532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Venireperson C.W.

Text: It appears that African-American venireperson C.W. would have been a strong juror for the State. Her father had been shot to death and she had a working relationship with law enforcement. Despite these facts, the State claims it struck C.W. for two reasons: (1) her telephone rang and (2) it would have been difficult for her to be absent from work. First, the State contends it struck C.W. because her telephone rang. The prosecutor claimed that C.W. did not take the process seriously because she was fiddling with her telephone and distracting other members of the panel. Defense counsel countered that it appeared C.W. was fumbling because she was having difficulty turning her telephone off, but eventually succeeded. It does not appear that there was a white juror who had trouble with her telephone, but such an identical comparison is not necessary. A per se rule that a defendant cannot win a Batson claim unless there is an exactly identical white juror would leave Batson inoperable; potential jurors are not products of a set of cookie cutters. [14] Even though the State made no record of C.W.'s telephone ringing at the time and failed to ask the court to instruct venirepersons to turn off their telephones, the State was apparently so bothered that it used the strike on C.W. and allowed white venireperson J.B. to remain on the jury. During voir dire, J.B. repeatedly stated that he would want the State to prove guilt beyond any possible doubt before he could impose a death sentence. The State unsuccessfully moved to strike J.B. for cause, arguing that it was quite clear he would require a higher burden for guilt before he would consider the death penalty. Yet, rather than striking a white venireperson who required a higher burden of proof, the State struck an African-American because her telephone rang. Second, the State asserts that it struck C.W. because it would have been difficult for her to be absent from work. During voir dire, C.W. stated: I'm a manager for a cleaning company and in our group there is three area managers. One is out of town  I mean one is sick, brain concussion and the other one has his own area, and I don't know if my boss will allow me to be out because I have to handle all buildings in the evening. Make sure all the cleaners are at work on time and any problems that come up. The State failed to strike white juror S.R. who also expressed that she would have difficulty taking time away from work. S.R. worked for a company that was about to undergo an audit. She was one of the key people and her employer had written a letter for her to give to the court explaining the extent of the hardship. She worked in the back office and needed to account for all the transition. The cash coming in and out and stuff. A lot of work was needed to prepare for the audit. Not only was S.R.'s statement of hardship more definite than C.W.'s claim, but S.R. had an additional reason to be struck. S.R. expressed a familiarity with the scene of the murder. The State indicated that there had been extensive construction in the area since the time of the murder and had concerns that jurors familiar with the scene would not rely exclusively on witness' accounts of the scene as it existed at the time of the murder. This familiarity with the area of the crime served as the rationale for striking African-American venirepersons C.N., M.B., V.G., and W.S. Yet, in addition to S.R., there were four additional white jurors with familiarity with the area of the crime who were not struck. [15]