Opinion ID: 2534025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The decision to reinstate the juror

Text: This court has not previously addressed the appropriate remedy for a Batson violation, and we decline to engage in a comprehensive analysis of that issue in the context of this post-conviction appeal. We address the merits of the trial court's decision to reinstate the juror in question here solely for the purpose of determining whether Foster can demonstrate the prejudice necessary to establish that he is entitled to relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. In so doing, we conclude that, under the singular facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court did not err in reinstating the challenged juror as an appropriate remedy. We reserve for another more appropriate case a more definitive decision of what remedy may best serve to vindicate in Nevada courts the multiple interests that Batson protects. [28] The Batson decision expressly left to state courts how best to implement its holding. It expressed no view: whether it is more appropriate in a particular case, upon a finding of discrimination..., for the trial court to discharge the venire and select a new jury from a panel not previously associated with the case, or to disallow the discriminatory challenges and resume selection with the improperly challenged jurors reinstated on the venire. [29] In implementing Batson, the states have generally followed one of three different approaches. [30] Some jurisdictions require the trial courts to disallow a peremptory strike made in violation of Batson or to reseat the improperly stricken juror. [31] Other jurisdictions require the trial courts to discharge the venire and commence jury selection anew from an entirely new venire. [32] The majority of courts, however, have delegated to the discretion of the trial judge the determination of the appropriate remedy for a Batson violation. [33] Thus, the remedy that the trial court selected in Foster's case has been held to be an appropriate means of addressing a Batson violation in other jurisdictions. [34] In the instant case, the trial court offered counsel the choice of starting over with an entirely new venire, or of continuing with the same venire with the last woman juror reinstated to the panel. Trial counsel's objection to the first option, made after consultation with his client, was in the nature of a tactical decision, and this court will not second-guess counsel's strategic decision. As for the trial court's ultimate decision to reinstate the challenged juror, Foster failed to demonstrate in the post-conviction proceedings below that merely because the juror at issue was aware that the defense had exercised a peremptory challenge against her, she harbored any animus or bias towards the defense. As the district court found in its order denying Foster's post-conviction claims, [t]here is nothing in the record to suggest that the female juror who was peremptorily challenged and ultimately retained on the panel exhibited any bias or prejudice for or against either party. The district court also observed that the trial court proceedings involving the Batson challenge were conducted outside the presence of the venire, and the juror at issue was instructed merely to wait while the court addressed some procedural issues. Further, the trial court provided general instructions to the venire as to how challenges were made and subsequently admonished the empanelled jury repeatedly to keep an open mind and to not form or express any opinion on the case. In sum, we conclude that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the reinstatement of the juror in question did not offend Foster's rights under the United States or Nevada Constitutions. Thus, Foster has not established the prejudice necessary to entitle him to relief on his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assign error on direct appeal with respect the trial court's resolution of the Batson issues; such assignments of error would not have had a reasonable chance of success on appeal. We emphasize, however, our strong preference that in accordance with the American Bar Association Standards, the trial courts of this state should assure that all peremptory challenges during jury selection are exercised and considered outside the presence of the jury venire. [35] Additionally, if a juror in such a situation is reseated and a curative instruction is requested, that curative instruction should be given on the record for purposes of review.