Opinion ID: 71274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B.

Text: The defendants argue that the government purposefully discriminated on the basis of gender in violation of J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994), by exercising its peremptory challenges to remove men from the venire. The government exercised its first ten strikes to remove men, and after an objection by Tokars, the government struck three men and three women. After the jury was struck, the district court heard the defense challenge. When confronted by the defense 3 See Eleventh Cir. Rule 36-1. allegation that the government was impermissibly striking, the government argued that there was a smaller number of women in the venire and that the defense engaged in its own practice of striking women.4 The government then conceded: [W]e did not strike men just to strike men, nor did we strike women just to strike women ... In fact, the defendants could have wiped out the entire sex of women with their strikes and still had five to go, and as a matter of principle, I think every sex should be represented in a trial of this nature as should every race be represented, and so we undertook a course of action anticipating the defendants would do what they did, which was strike almost in the exact opposite proportion of women to men, because if you look at the balance, the greater proportion of their strikes were women. R56-532-33. The government also argued that men had not been declared to be a cognizable group for purposes of a Batson challenge. Regarding the challenge the district court stated: I don't think men do constitute a cognizable group for Batson. There is a case in the Supreme Court presently regarding whether women constitute a cognizable group. The holding of the circuit[s] so far, the Fifth Circuit has held that women do not constitute a cognizable group. So have the Fourth and [the] Seventh. The Ninth Circuit has gone the other way. I do not know of any circuit decision that has held that men are a cognizable group ... I do not think the challenge is valid. However, given the degree of novelty of the issue, Mr. Parker, do you and Ms. Monahan want to place on the record what your reasons were for striking the men that you struck? R56-534-35. The government proceeded to state gender-neutral reasons for each of its strikes. The district court overruled the defendants' objections, and the case proceeded to trial with a jury 4 Although not relevant to our analysis, we find it interesting that Tokars's counsel intimated his own discriminatory views during the challenge conference: [M]y reading of the Government's strikes was that it was almost all straight males, and then at the end out of the last four, I think they struck three females, one black female and two regular females. R56-531 (emphasis added). composed of eight men and four women. After the jury returned its verdict in this case, the Supreme Court decided J.E.B., thereby extending Batson to gender. Consequently, Mason moved for a new trial. The district court conducted a hearing on the motion and determined that J.E.B. should not be applied retroactively because it was not forecast by prior decisions to the same degree as was Batson. The district court's conclusion regarding the retroactivity of J.E.B. was incorrect in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987), which mandates that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a clear break' with the past. However, the district court also found that the government's proffered reasons were non-pretextual and explained: Finally, I do recognize that an inference of discrimination, whether it be race discrimination or gender discrimination, can be inferred from a pattern of strikes. Now, in this case it is true that the government utilized 13 of its 16 strikes to strike men. However, in determining whether an inference of discrimination may properly be raised, I think it is appropriate to consider the factual setting as a whole, and in this case the factual setting reflects that the panel that we began with, the panel of, I believe it is, 56 disproportionally represented men. Apparently 55 percent of that panel consisted of men. In addition to that, the record reflects that the defendants collectively struck a disproportionate number of women. Therefore, the setting within which the government exercised its strikes was a setting within which women were under-represented both as a product of the initial makeup of the panel, and as a product of the pattern of strikes reflected by the defendant's [sic] strikes. R79-67-68. The Supreme Court has established a three-step analysis to be applied when addressing a claim that peremptory challenges were used in a manner that violates the Equal Protection Clause. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-59, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 186566, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (plurality opinion). First, the party challenging the peremptory strike must establish a prima facie case that the prosecutor exercised the peremptory strikes for a discriminatory reason. See id. Second, if the prima facie case has been established, the burden shifts to the proponent of the peremptory challenge to articulate a gender-neutral explanation for the strike. See id. The Supreme Court clarified that in order to satisfy step two, a legitimate reason' is not a reason that makes sense, but a reason that does not deny equal protection. Purkett v. Elem, --- U.S. ----, ----, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 1771, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam). Third, the trial court must ascertain whether the opponent of the strike has carried his or her burden of proving intentional discrimination. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359, 111 S.Ct. at 1866. The district court's findings on the issue of discriminatory intent are entitled to great deference and are reviewed for clear error. Id., 500 U.S. at 364-65, 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69. This case presents a situation of mixed motives. It is apparent from the government's statements following Tokars's challenge that gender was indeed a factor that was considered in exercising its strikes. Tokars and Mason argue that this statement constitutes a blatant admission of discriminatory intent that negates the relevance of any other non-discriminatory reasons offered. As such, Tokars and Mason contend that the government's actions violated J.E.B. This circuit, however, has recently joined three other circuits in adopting dual motivation analysis for purposes of Batson. See Wallace v. Morrison, 87 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.1996) (applying dual motivation where prosecutor stated that race was a factor considered in the exercise of peremptory strike); United States v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507, 1530-32 (8th Cir.1995) (applying dual motivation where prosecutor struck on basis of youth, inexperience, and alleged young black female tendency to testify on behalf and be more sympathetic toward individuals who are involved in narcotics), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1449, 134 L.Ed.2d 569, and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 2567, 135 L.Ed.2d 1084 (1996); Jones v. Plaster, 57 F.3d 417, 42122 (4th Cir.1995) (applying dual motivation but remanding to district court for clarification of findings regarding whether the strike was exercised for a discriminatory purpose and whether it would have been exercised in the absence of the discriminatory purpose); Howard v. Senkowski, 986 F.2d 24, 27-31 (2d Cir.1993) (applying dual motivation to prosecutor's pre-Batson statements). Dual motivation analysis grants the proponent of a strike the opportunity to raise an affirmative defense after the opponent of the strike has established a prima facie case of discrimination. Wallace, 87 F.3d at 1274-75; Howard, 986 F.2d at 30. In order to prove this affirmative defense, the proponent of the strike bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the strike would have been exercised even in the absence of the discriminatory motivation. Wallace, 87 F.3d at 1275.5 After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court's findings that the government offered gender-neutral reasons for the strikes is not clearly erroneous. The district court conducted a hearing during which it reviewed each of the government's reasons for striking the jurors and found them to be gender-neutral. In making a finding of no pretext, the district court in effect made the appropriate findings necessary for dual motivation analysis. Applying dual motivation, we conclude that the government would have exercised the strikes in the absence of any discriminatory motivation.6 Finally, we note that resort to dual motivation analysis will 5 In Howard, the Second Circuit held that the dual motivation analysis used by the Supreme Court in the constitutional context should apply to Batson challenges. See, e.g., Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 270-71 n. 21, 97 S.Ct. 555, 566 n. 21, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). 6 We acknowledge that in Purkett, the Supreme Court stated that the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike. Purkett, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1771. However, we do not perceive this language to prohibit the application of dual motivation analysis. In Purkett, the Court faced the question whether the proponent of the strike should be required to present a plausible or persuasive reason for striking a juror in order for the reason to be considered race-neutral. Id. The Court found that such a requirement stopped the analysis too early and, in effect, relieved the burden of persuasion regarding discriminatory motivation from the opponent of the strike. Id. As such, the Court found that the proponent of the strike may offer an implausible reason as long as it is not race-based on its face. Id. Whereas the opponent of the strike in Purkett sought to avoid its burden of persuasion in the face of an implausible explanation, the dual motivation analysis provides an affirmative defense to the proponent of the strike but does not take away the ultimate burden of persuasion from the opponent of the strike. rarely be necessary. By now, no competent prosecutor or defense attorney is unaware of the fact that strikes on the basis of race or gender are prohibited. The procedural posture of this case is unusual in that the law at the time of trial was unclear as to whether Batson would be extended to gender. Unlike the respondent in J.E.B., the government in this case expressed that it was not striking men on the basis of stereotyping. Furthermore, both the prosecutor and defense counsel could have raised a J.E.B. challenge. Moreover, the jury itself ultimately consisted of eight men and four women. While the ultimate composition of the jury does not nullify the possibility of gender discrimination, it is a significant factor in the highly deferential review we afford the district court's conclusions. See United States v. Jiminez, 983 F.2d 1020, 1023-24 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 925, 114 S.Ct. 330, 126 L.Ed.2d 276 (1993).