Legal Document

514 U.S. 765115 S.Ct. 1769131 L.Ed.2d 834 James PURKETT, Superintendent, Farmington Corrections Centerv.Jimmy ELEM. No. 94-802. Supreme Court of the United States Decided May 15, 1995. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent was convicted second-degree robbery in a Missouri court. During jury selection, he objected to prosecutor's use peremptory challenges strike two black men from panel, an objection arguably based on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 79, 106 1712, 90 69 (1986). The prosecutor explained his strikes: 2 "I struck [juror] number twenty-two because long hair. He had curly longest hair anybody panel by far. appeared not be good juror for that fact, fact hanging down shoulder length, curly, unkempt Also, mustache and goatee type beard. And twenty-four also has Those are only people . with facial I don't like way they looked, is cut, both them. mustaches beards look suspicious me." App. pet. Cert. A-41. 3 further feared 24, who sawed-off shotgun pointed at him during supermarket robbery, would believe "to have you gun, there no gun this case." Ibid. 4 state trial court, without explanation, overruled respondent's empaneled jury. On direct appeal, respondent renewed claim. Appeals affirmed, finding "state's explanation constituted legitimate 'hunch' " "[t]he circumstances fail[ed] raise necessary inference racial discrimination." State Elem, 747 S.W.2d 772, 775 (Mo.App.1988). 5 then filed petition habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting other claims. Adopting magistrate judge's report recommendation, District concluded courts' determination been purposeful discrimination factual entitled presumption correctness 2254(d). Since support record, denied 6 Eighth Circuit reversed remanded instructions grant writ corpus. It said: 7 "[W]here prosecution strikes prospective member defendant's group, solely basis factors which facially irrelevant question whether person qualified serve as particular case, must least articulate some plausible race-neutral reason believing those will somehow affect person's ability perform or her duties juror. In present comments, 'I [he] look[s], cut. mustache[ ] beard[ me,' do constitute such reasons striking 22." 25 F.3d 679, 683 (1994). 8 "prosecution's 22 pretextual," court "clearly erred" intentional discrimination. Id., 684. 9 Under our jurisprudence, once opponent challenge made out prima facie case (step 1), burden production shifts proponent come forward 2). If tendered, decide 3) proved Hernandez New York, 500 352, 358-359, 111 1859, 1865-1866, 114 395 (1991) (plurality opinion); id., 375, S.Ct., 1874 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring judgment); Batson, supra, 96-98, 1722-1723. second step process does demand persuasive, even plausible. "At [second] inquiry, issue validity explanation. Unless discriminatory intent inherent offered deemed race neutral." Hernandez, U.S., 360, 1866 374, judgment). 10 erred combining Batson's third steps into one, requiring justification tendered just neutral but minimally i.e., "plausible" "the juror" affected. F.3d, 683. until persuasiveness becomes relevant—the determines carried proving 98, 1723; 359, 1865 opinion). At stage, implausible fantastic justifications may (and probably will) found pretexts But say judge choose disbelieve silly superstitious quite different saying terminate inquiry when superstitious. latter violates principle ultimate persuasion regarding motivation rests with, never from, strike. Cf. St. Mary's Honor Center Hicks, 509 ----, ---- - 113 2742, 2748-2749, 125 407 (1993). 11 appears seized admonition rebut "must give 'clear reasonably specific' 'legitimate reasons' exercising challenges," n. 20, 1724, 20 (quoting Texas Dept. Community Affairs Burdine, 450 248, 258, 101 1089, 1096, 67 207 (1981)), "related tried," 1724. See 682, This warning meant refute notion could satisfy merely denying motive affirming faith. What it means "legitimate reason" makes sense, deny equal protection. 1866; cf. 255, 1094 ("The provided legally sufficient justify judgment defendant"). 12 proffered case—that long, hair, mustache, beard—is satisfies prosecution's articulating nondiscriminatory "The wearing characteristic peculiar any race." EEOC Greyhound Lines, Inc. 635 F.2d 188, 190, (CA3 1980). neither growing Thus, properly proceeded 3, where motivated intent. 13 proceedings federal courts, findings courts presumed correct, set aside, absent procedural error, if "not fairly supported record." 2254(d)(8). Marshall Lonberger, 459 422, 432, 103 843, 849, 74 646 (1983). Here did conclude attempt court's record. For its whole focus upon reasonableness asserted nonracial (which thought required 2) rather than genuineness motive. gave proper overturning motive, turned primarily assessment credibility, see 21, 21. Marshall, 434, 850. 14 Accordingly, motion leave proceed forma pauper certiorari granted. reversed, consistent opinion. 15 so ordered. 16 Justice STEVENS, whom BREYER joins, dissenting. 17 my opinion unwise announce law-changing decision first ordering full briefing argument merits case. today overrules portion (1986).1 18 held Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment forbids exclude African Americans service their race. articulated three-step violations. First, pattern jurors establish purpose. Second, face tendering strikes. Third, pretextual. mere denial improper nor incredible suffice showing minimum, related tried." 1724.2 19 Today holds mean what said Batson. Moreover, resolves novel recognizing importance unusual facts * rejected jurors, ground defendant failed saw need confirm assertion 24 were black;3 require explain challenges. nevertheless volunteer explanation,4 evaluated credibility sufficiency. 21 relying partly one-third peremptories veniremen 774 (1988), rebuttal volunteered "explanation 'hunch,' 775. thus relied, alternatively, one analysis reaching might pretextual three. Federal accepted magistrate's recommendation petitioner's conducting hearing. reasoned state-court deference. Pet. A-27. Even though findings, treated statement "constituted record.5 When reached Circuit, parties apparently assumed petitioner satisfied analysis.6 disputed contrary academic refuted 23 agreed excluding error concern about juror's status former victim hand. 681, 682 did, however, find violation respect 22. rejecting "race-neutral" strike, faithfully applied standard we Batson: 'related tried.' 683, quoting 1723-1724 (emphasis Before applying test, noted Court's interpretation Antwine, 743 51 (1987) (en banc), i ntervening (1991). Referring stage analysis, Antwine observed: "We believe, 'neutral explanations' more legitimate, specific clear. Were explanations more, meaningless. take little effort prosecutors mind adopt rote bear legitimacy conceal We intended charade announced Batson." 65. 26 claim stemming Spanish-speaking Latino jurors. accept interpreter's English translation testimony given Spanish. Because directly tried, prong standard. noted, plurality expressly observed all venirepersons speak language, "without regard trial," pretext 371-372, 1873 (opinion KENNEDY, J.).7 Based precedent, entirely correct violated unrelated trial.8 27 Today, argument, replaces surprising announcement matter how "implausible fantastic," ante, ____, "silly superstitious," ibid., A unless separate "step three" leads conclusion racially motivated. why beard," last name began letter 'S' should two, hunch" not. ____; 1723-1724. too much ask neutral, specific, related. Nothing less race-based arises 253, 1093-1094, (1981). That, event, decided II disposition overlooks tricky problem. Ordinarily, appeals reviewing proceeding evaluate, appropriate deference, legal conclusions Everyone now agrees incorrect. judge, holding sufficiency two. question, then, (1) go (2) reverse remand proceedings, (3) conditioned step-two (if necessary) step-three hearing implicitly ratifies Appeals' evaluate own think resolution deserves consideration provided. 29 many cases, district better position surrounding favor rule giving discretion, review justified these same respond Appeals, presents pure nothing gained can resolve before it. 30 Assuming err new problem (or, today's Court) conducts decides sufficient. Who three Batson? Again, decides, refers depend record Appeals. Whatever procedure contemplated, acknowledge implausible, fantastic, evidence. Indeed, policy tried. 1872-1873 J.). Parallel reasoning excusing pending 31 conceivably length character goatee-type beard rise nonconformist identify concern. 'like [the juror] looked,' 'look[ed] suspicious.' Ante, ____ 1770. well law; hand, evasive hunch." fails established, appellate collateral claims amount meaningless correctly understood disfavor. S.W.2d, 32 opinion, preoccupation niceties foreclose meaningful judicial prosecutorial adhere Alternatively, hold that, absence explicit issue, law. unnecessary tolerance silly, explanations, together assumption difference constitutional magnitude between hunch appearance," challenged mustache," demeans values vindicated 33 respectfully dissent. time Term misused summary reversal authority way. Duncan Henry, 513 115 887, 891, 130 865 (1995) (STEVENS, dissenting). explained: "Nor 'affirm[ing] [his] faith making individual selections.' Alexander Louisiana, 405 [625], 632 [92 1221, 1226, 536 (1972) ]. general assertions rebutting 'would vain illusory requirement.' Norris Alabama, [294 587, 598, 55 579, 584, 79 L.Ed. 1074 (1935) therefore duty determine established 97-98, (footnotes omitted). following exchange took place defense attorney judge: "MR. GOULET: Mr. Larner stated prejudicial. Number twenty-four, William Hunt, fair impartial To make call up individuals them notice individuals? "THE COURT: am going no, sir." A-42. stated: me jury, numbers kind and, course, women, me. face, didn't want involve shotgun, maybe feel determined 'hunch'. supports Court, least, True, "may discrimination," 372, 1873, specifically referred (1986), analysis. Nevertheless, comment modify determining response certainly obtuse method changing disrespectful conscientious judges unambiguous opinions appear tried,' 98 [106 1724]". ____. Of "seized on" point told to. clear mandate. criticize doing jobs singularly inappropriate. taken seriously. Numerous acted See, e.g., Jones Ryan, 987 960, 974 1993); Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676, 682-683 (Ala.1991); Henderson, 112 Ore.App. 451, 456, 829 P.2d 1025, 1028 (1992); Whitsey State, 796 707, 713-716 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Jackson Commonwealth, Va.App. 176, 186-187, 380 S.E.2d 1, 6-7 (1989); Butler, 731 265, 271 (Mo.App.1987); Slappy 503 350, 355 (Fla.App.1987); Walker 611 1133, 1142 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Huntley 627 1011, 1012 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). calls decisions courtesy argument.

Classification Label: 1