Opinion ID: 153592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preemptory Challenge

Text: 24 Ogaz-Nevarez contends that the district court erred in allowing the government to use a preemptory challenge to dismiss the only jury veniremen of color that would have known the feeling of isolation, the difficulty in communication and the feelings of frustration involved in being an alien in a foreign land. 25 During voir dire, the government utilized its last preemptory challenge to dismiss prospective juror Malabika Sen (Sen). Ogaz-Nevarez objected on the grounds that Sen was the only person of color on the whole jury. (Tr. Vol. IV at 62). The district court observed that Sen was a woman from India with an appearance of Indian heritage, but that she was not of Hispanic origin. Id. Upon inquiry from the court, the government responded that it was its practice to dismiss prospective jurors who work in the social services field, as Sen did. Id. 26 Under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the government is prohibited from using preemptory challenges to remove members of the venire panel based on race. However, to prevail under Batson, a defendant must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the selection of the petit jury by showing that: (1) he is a member of a cognizable racial group; (2) the government exercised its preemptory challenges to remove venire members of the defendant's race; and (3) the facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used his preemptory challenges to exclude veniremen from the jury on the basis of their race. Id. at 96. Only after the defendant has established a prima facie case does the burden shift to the prosecutor to make a clear and reasonably specific explanation for challenging the minority juror. Id. at 97. 27 In United States v. Johnson, 941 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir.1991), we concluded that where the prosecutor offers a race neutral explanation for his preemptory challenge and the trial court ruled on the ultimate issue of intentional discrimination, the preliminary question of whether a defendant has actually made a prima facie of discrimination is moot. See Sledd v. McKune, 71 F.3d 797, 800 (10th Cir.1995). Therefore, while it appears that Ogaz-Nevarez has failed to establish a prima facie case because he is of Hispanic origin and the challenged venireman, Sen, is of Indian origin, that issue is moot and we must proceed to consider the explanation offered by the government for striking Sen and the district court's acceptance thereof. 28 In reviewing a Batson challenge, we analyze the prosecutor's explanation for his actions as a legal issue de novo. Johnson, 941 F.2d at 1108. At this step in the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor's explanation. Id. (quotation omitted). Therefore, unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral. Id. Next, we review the district court's ultimate factual rulings on whether the prosecutor intentionally discriminated for clear error. Id. 29 After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that the government provided a valid race-neutral reason for excluding Sen. We are not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake was committed. Therefore, we hold that the district court's ruling is not clearly erroneous and the government's preemptory challenge was exercised in a constitutionally permissible manner.