Opinion ID: 1763897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in overruling brawner's objections to the state's exercise of certain peremptory challenges.

Text: ¶ 21. According to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and its progeny, parties may not exercise peremptory strikes for unconstitutionally discriminatory reasons. In this case, the jury was composed of nine women and three men. Nevertheless, Brawner asserted a gender-based objection to the State's peremptory challenges of female jurors during the jury selection process. Similarly, the State objected to Brawner's use of peremptory strikes against males. The selection process and peremptory challenges from the record are depicted in the table below: Juror # State Defense Jurors Selected or and Sex Strike Strike Reason for Challenge # 7-female D1 # 14-male D2 Knows David Craft, a family member of deceased victims # 32-male S1 # 37-male Juror # 1 # 38-female S2 Juror pregnant. The previous week a pregnant juror had problems with the lack of air conditioning in the courtroom. # 65-male D3 Crime victim, family members are in law enforcement # 68-female S3 Juror stated four deaths are enough # 79-female Juror # 2 # 81-female Juror # 3 # 86-female Juror # 4 # 91-female Juror # 5 # 105-male D4 Previously a juror and found a defendant guilty # 107-female D5 Previously a juror and found a defendant guilty # 108-female S4 Juror's brother was convicted of murder # 111-male D6 Crime victim # 112-female Juror # 6 # 120-female S5 Stated she thinks life w/o parole is worse than death # 122-female S6 Information from outside source (local law enforcement) said she would not make a good juror in a death penalty case # 123-male Juror # 7 # 127-female Juror # 8 # 157-female D7 # 169-female S7 Relative in law enforcement expressed concern as to whether she could consider the death penalty # 171-female D8 # 172-female Juror # 9 # 176-female S8 Not employed, stated it would be a hardship for her to sit on the jury # 189-male S9 Son was prosecuted by State # 193-female S10 Preferred the next juror up, also a female # 209-female D9 # 211-male D10 # 212-male D11 # 220-female Juror # 10 # 237-not in record S11 # 243-male D12 # 254-not in record S12 # 261-male Juror # 11 # 262-female Juror # 12 ¶ 22. During the initial selection of 12 jurors, the State struck three females and one male, tendering seven females and five males. Brawner asserted that this was a prima facie showing of gender bias against female jurors and challenged the strikes based on J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). Because seven of the 12 tendered jurors were female, the judge declined to find a prima facie showing of gender bias. Out of caution, however, the judge granted the State's request to show on-the-record the non-discriminatory purpose for each strike (see reasons in table above). The defense then struck four males and two females from the tendered jurors, and the State objected that the defense had struck every white male that had been tendered. The judge then asked the defense to give the reason for each strike and found that even though there seemed to be some bias, it was too weak to find a pattern of gender discrimination. ¶ 23. The State next tendered one male and five females, striking one male and five females during the process, and the defense renewed its J.E.B. gender challenge. The State again, out of an abundance of caution requested and was allowed to give reasons for its strikes. The defense offered rebuttal to five of the State's strikes. First, Brawner argued that juror number 38, who is pregnant, had not shown that the baby would be born during the trial or that the pregnancy would impact her ability to be a juror. The State countered that a pregnant juror the previous week had had a hard time with the heat, because the court room was not air conditioned. Next, Brawner argued that jurors 108 and 176 were struck because they were unemployed and that the State was being inconsistent because it allowed other jurors who were retired, thus unemployed, to be seated. The State countered that an additional reason for striking juror 108 was because her brother had been convicted of murder. Finally, the State struck jurors # 122 and # 169 based on outside information provided by law enforcement officials who knew these potential jurors and thought they might be biased against the death penalty. Brawner noted that after juror # 122 was questioned under oath by both parties and the judge, she expressed no qualms about the death penalty. Brawner argues that the State's use of second hand hearsay evidence restricted his ability to rebut the State's reason for striking such a juror. ¶ 24. The State offered an additional reason for striking so many females: namely, that there were 13 out of 15 female jurors in a row at one point, thus the State had little choice but to strike female jurors. The judge again found no pattern of gender discrimination. ¶ 25. The proper analysis to determine if purposeful discrimination in the jury selection process has occurred was set out in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and has been reiterated by this Court in numerous cases. See Berry v. State, 728 So.2d 568 (Miss.1999); Randall v. State, 716 So.2d 584 (Miss.1998); McFarland v. State, 707 So.2d 166 (Miss.1998). Batson requires, as step one, that the defendant make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race. In step two, if the requisite showing has been made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question. The Batson procedure then authorizes the defendant to rebut the prosecutorial explanations, if he is able to do so. Chisolm v. State, 529 So.2d 635, 638 (Miss.1988). Finally, in step three, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. The trial judge must make an on-the-record factual determination that each reason proffered by the State for exercising a peremptory challenge is, in fact, race neutral. Hatten v. State, 628 So.2d 294, 295 (Miss.1993). In other words, the trial judge must determine whether the reason given is a pretext for discrimination. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 363, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (plurality). ¶ 26. Although Batson and Hatten concerned racial discrimination, this Court held in Bounds v. State, 688 So.2d 1362 (Miss.1997), that all of the case law following and interpreting Batson also applies to J.E.B. and gender discrimination issues, and race-neutral reasons for striking a juror are also permissible gender-neutral reasons. Id. As with race-based Batson claims, a party alleging gender discrimination must make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination before the party exercising the challenge is required to explain the basis for the strike. J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 145, 114 S.Ct. 1419. When an explanation is required, it need not rise to the level of a for cause challenge; rather, it merely must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender, and the proffered explanation may not be pretextual. See Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 362-63, 111 S.Ct. 1859. The trial court's decision is accorded great deference on review, and this Court will reverse only where the decision is clearly erroneous. Puckett v. State, 788 So.2d 752, 756 (Miss.2000); Collins v. State, 691 So.2d 918, 926 (Miss. 1997). ¶ 27. As explained in Randall v. State, 716 So.2d 584, 587 (Miss.1998), to determine if a prima facie case of discrimination has been shown, the pivotal question is whether the opponent of the strike has met the burden of showing that proponent has engaged in a pattern of strikes based on race or gender, or in other words `the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.'  Id. (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 94, 106 S.Ct. at 1721). In the present case, the trial judge twice found that the defense did not make a prima facie showing of gender discrimination. In reviewing the trial court's determination, we agree that there was no prima facie showing that the State engaged in a pattern of strikes based on gender. The initial 36 jurors in the jury pool, from which the twelve jurors were ultimately selected, consisted of 22 females and 12 males (the gender of two of the prospective jurors is not clear from the record), or slightly more than 60% female. From these, a jury of nine females and 3 males was selected, or 75% female. Upon the tender of the first twelve prospective jurors, seven female and five male, the State used four strikes to eliminate three women and one man. Upon the second tender of five women and one man, the State struck five women and one man. In total the State tendered 12 women and six men. Although the State struck substantially more women than men, the fact that the selected jury incorporated a proportionally larger percentage of women than were in the venire contradicts the claim of gender discrimination. ¶ 28. Notwithstanding the finding that a prima facie showing of gender bias had not been made, the judge nevertheless allowed the State to offer, for the record, its gender-neutral reasons for striking females. [1] We view this as a good practice for two reasons. First, if it becomes necessary to remand for a Batson hearing, this record would be invaluable assistance to the trial judge and would allay the difficulties caused by lost or misplaced documentation and faded memories, which may lessen the credibility of a party. Second, if on appeal this Court determines that a prima facie case has been made, this procedure gives the Court a complete record for reviewing the issue of pretext. As revealed in Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346, 1349 (Miss.1987), this practice has been allowed since a few days after Batson was decided in 1986. However, as held in Stewart v. State, 662 So.2d 552, 559 (Miss. 1995), a trial judge does not have the authority to invoke a Batson hearing on his own initiative, without the opposing party first making a prima facie showing of discriminatory purpose. ¶ 29. In Puckett v. State, 737 So.2d 322, 334-35 (Miss.1999), this Court stated that the voluntary action of the State in providing race or gender neutral reasons for its strikes without a finding of a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination does not lessen the burden on the defendant to establish the prima facie case. Upon review, this Court `must first ... determine[ ] that the circumstances of the State's use of peremptory challenges against minority venire persons created an inference of purposeful discrimination.' Id. (quoting Thorson v. State, 653 So.2d 876, 898 (Miss.1994)). ¶ 30. Where a trial judge finds that there is no prima facie showing of discrimination, but then allows the opposite party to make a record for appeal by stating their reasons for the strikes, the trial judge must ensure that the record is complete by allowing a rebuttal and by making specific on-the-record factual findings for each strike as required by Hatten. ¶ 31. Although in the present case we have held that there was no prima facie showing of discriminatory purpose in the peremptory strikes made by the State, we nevertheless address the issue of using outside information as the basis for striking jurors. We have upheld this practice in previous cases. [2] However, we feel compelled to address the practice of striking potential jurors in criminal trials based on information gathered from outside sources, often law enforcement officers, when those sources are not revealed or are not available for questioning. In addressing the gender-neutral reasons offered by the prosecution for striking female jurors in one case, we stated: Clearly, none of these reasons per se violates Batson, and so the analysis moves to step three in order to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the reasons offered by the State were mere pretexts for unlawful discrimination. Here they clearly were not. The determination of pretext, like the other Batson elements, hinges to a large extent on credibility. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 769, 115 S.Ct. 1769. [3] Furthermore, as this Court stated in Mack v. State, the relative strength of the prima facie case will color to a degree the determination of the pretext. Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289, 1298 (Miss. 1994). Hughes v. State, 735 So.2d 238, 252 (Miss. 1999). In this same light, we listed a number of possible acceptable race-neutral bases for peremptory strikes in Appendix I of Lockett. Even though Lockett was decided prior to our Hatten requirement for on-the-record factual determinations, we stated that our opinion should not be construed to limit legitimate, racially neutral reasons to the reasons in this case or to hold these reasons to be automatically race-neutral in any other case. Lockett, 517 So.2d at 1352 (emphasis added). While we do not hold today that our trial judges should conduct a mini-hearing within a Batson hearing each time a peremptory challenge is exercised based on information gained from outside sources, we do depend on the trial courts to exercise caution to ensure that peremptory challenges based on information from outside sources is credible and supported by on-the-record factual findings to this effect and that a complete record is made on this issue. If in doubt about the validity of outside information, the trial court should do what is necessary to ensure the proposed reasons are non-pretextual. This may include questioning the outside source on the record. ¶ 32. We find no error in the trial court's J.E.B. analysis. No prima facie case of gender discrimination was shown by Brawner. It is not necessary to review each gender neutral reason offered by the State for its strikes.