Opinion ID: 2242785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: David Knuckles

Text: Dr. McPartlin's counsel explained that he excused venireperson Knuckles based on a negative experience Knuckles had had with the medical profession in connection with his mother's death a few years earlier. Knuckles described his mother's doctor as one of those diet quacks. Knuckles had a negative feeling after her sudden death, and believed that the doctor could have done some things differently. He explained that [i]t was a case where you would think because she's going to the doctor everything was fine, then you get sick and die. When asked by Dr. McPartlin's counsel whether, despite this experience, he could be fair in this particular case, Knuckles responded, After being here I can say, yes, maybe. Before I came in the room, no. But after the Judge and hearing everything I could say yes. An equivocal statement by a veniremember as to the ability to be fair and impartial may constitute a race-neutral reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. See People v. Wiley, 165 Ill.2d 259, 282, 209 Ill.Dec. 261, 651 N.E.2d 189 (1995). In light of Knuckles' equivocal representation as to his ability to be fair, the trial court's finding that counsel's challenge of Knuckles was not racially motivated was not clearly erroneous.