Opinion ID: 2093275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: peremptory challenges to african-american jurors

Text: Myers argues that the State's peremptory challenges to three African-American members of the jury pool were racially motivated. Relying upon Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), Myers challenged the removal of these jurors, but did not do so until after the jury had been sworn. In State v. Covarrubias, 244 Neb. 366, 507 N.W.2d 248 (1993), questioned on other grounds, State v. Pierce, 248 Neb. 536, 537 N.W.2d 323 (1995), we held that an attack on the use of peremptory challenges on Batson grounds must be made prior to the jury's being sworn. We reasoned that in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1601.03(4) (Reissue 1995), the Legislature provided that one of the purposes of chapter 25, article 16, is to ensure that no citizen is excluded from jury duty because of discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1637(1) (Reissue 1995) provides that a motion for relief based on the ground of substantial failure to comply with chapter 25, article 16, must be made before the jury is sworn to try the case. Thus, we concluded that a defendant's objection to the use of peremptory strikes on Batson grounds should also be made prior to the swearing in of the jury or before any objections are waived. Here, Myers did not raise his claim that the State had stricken jurors in a racially motivated manner until after the jury had been sworn. At the hearing on this motion, the State acknowledged that the motion was untimely, but counsel stated: However ... I also believe that we simply create yet another appellate issue by my challenging his ability to raise a Batson issue. And for that reason, I will waive any objection to the Batson challenges being raised out of time, and I am prepared to defend my challenges. Although the State waived the error of raising the Batson challenge out of time, we must consider whether the State is empowered to make such a waiver. In People v. Banks, 243 Ill.App.3d 525, 611 N.E.2d 1270, 183 Ill.Dec. 622 (1993), the state argued that the defendant had waived his Batson claim for the purpose of appeal because he did not object before the jury was sworn. The court noted that while it is true that a defendant's failure to object to a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges before the jury is sworn results in a waiver of that claim, the doctrine of waiver applies to the state as well as to the defendant. In that case, the defendant raised the Batson challenge out of time, but the state argued the merits of the claim without objecting to the challenge's timeliness. The court found the state had waived the argument of procedural bar. See, also, People v. Harris, 129 Ill.2d 123, 544 N.E.2d 357, 135 Ill.Dec. 861 (1989). Likewise, we conclude that the State waived any objection to the timeliness of this Batson challenge. See, Carter v. Hopkins, 151 F.3d 872 (8th Cir.1998) (noting that state had waived defense of procedural default to Batson challenge); People v. Wiley, 156 Ill.2d 464, 622 N.E.2d 766, 190 Ill.Dec. 736 (1993) (finding that state may waive timeliness of Batson challenge); People v. Harris, supra (finding that state may waive timeliness of Batson challenge); People v. Lott, 196 Ill.App.3d 967, 554 N.E.2d 569, 143 Ill.Dec. 634 (1990) (finding that state may waive timeliness of Batson challenge). In State v. Allen, 252 Neb. 187, 560 N.W.2d 829 (1997), we held that in order to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the selection of a jury based on the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, the defendant must show (1) that he or she is a member of a cognizable racial group, (2) that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the panel members of the defendant's race, and (3) that facts and other circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used the challenges to exclude potential jurors based on their race. After the defendant has made a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to provide a race-neutral explanation for challenging the jurors. See, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); State v. Lopez, 249 Neb. 634, 544 N.W.2d 845 (1996); State v. Rowe, 228 Neb. 663, 423 N.W.2d 782 (1988). If a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995). The rule, as articulated in State v. Allen, supra , suggests that the race of the defendant and the members of the jury who were stricken must be the same in order for a Batson challenge to stand. In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), the Court held that common racial identity between a defendant and an excluded venireperson is not a prerequisite for a challenge under Batson and that such a requirement would contravene the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. See, also, State v. Rodriguez, 6 Neb.App. 67, 569 N.W.2d 686 (1997). We also hold that the race of the venireperson and the defendant need not be the same in order to sustain a Batson challenge. To the extent that State v. Allen, supra , could be interpreted to require a common racial identity between the defendant and an excluded venireperson as a prerequisite for a challenge under Batson, it is disapproved. The State articulated several reasons for striking the three African-American jurors. The State struck one juror because she was young and single, and the State was concerned that she might be attracted to Myers. This juror was also stricken because she lived in an area of high gang activity, but when she was questioned, she claimed to know nothing about gangs. The State found her response unbelievable. The second juror was stricken because she was unemployed, did not follow court instructions, and seemed to have a disagreeable attitude. The third juror was described as elderly and disabled. The State expressed concern about her paying attention during the trial and her ability to follow directions. After hearing these explanations, the district court concluded that the State had race-neutral reasons for using its strikes and overruled Myers' motion. A trial court's determination of the adequacy of the State's neutral explanation of its peremptory challenges will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. State v. Lopez, supra . This court has affirmed various neutral reasons for striking a juror presented by the prosecution. See, e.g., State v. Walton, 227 Neb. 559, 418 N.W.2d 589 (1988) (juror stricken because she was unemployed, was single, lived at particular address, and did not have community ties); State v. Alvarado, 226 Neb. 195, 410 N.W.2d 118 (1987) (juror was stricken because she was young and defense witnesses were young and because of unavailability of juror background questionnaire for her). We conclude that the reasons articulated by the prosecution in this case are sufficiently neutral to avoid reversal on a clearly erroneous standard. Thus, this assignment of error is without merit.