Court Opinion

ID: 9633993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:11:33.987073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:24.308093
License: Public Domain

BOSSON, Judge, specially concurring. I write specially, while fully embracing what has been said by my colleagues, to emphasize the critical roles of the trial court and defense counsel in putting the prosecutor’s “facially neutral” explanation to the test. As a practical matter, the Batson line of cases, with Purkett as the latest voice, place a heavy responsibility on the skills of defense counsel to flesh out the prosecutor’s proffered explanation and see if it can stand the light of day. So too, the trial court must display a healthy skepticism and permit counsel sufficient latitude to do a job which is now harder than ever. The trial court should be concerned when a peremptory challenge, otherwise subject to prima facie Batson objection, is so dependent upon subjective intuition. The trial court should closely scrutinize any such rationale, all the while being on the watch for pretextual behavior masking illegitimate motive. It is not just the repulsive racist who, for the sake of winning, selects a jury according to strategic and tactical considerations that are discriminatory, whether intended or not. See Keeton v. State, 749 S.W.2d 861, 868 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (en banc) (although not intentionally discriminating, an attorney may for strategic reasons try to find reasons other than race to challenge a black juror, when race may really be the primary factor). A number of court decisions have declined to strike peremptory challenges based on similar grounds such as body language, eye contact and the like. See United States v. Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d 1368, 1374 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (eye contact); United States v. Cartlidge, 808 F.2d 1064, 1070-71 (5th Cir.1987) (recognizing lack of eye contact with prosecutor as valid reason for strikes); see also Harper v. State, 635 So.2d 864, 868 (Miss.1994) (eye contact); State v. Bronson, 242 Neb. 931, 496 N.W.2d 882, 893 (1993) (recognizing that body language and eye contact may be valid reasons for strikes); State v. Holley, 604 A.2d 772, 778 (R.I.1992) (same). See generally Eric N. Einhorn, Batson v. Kentucky and J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.: Is the Peremptory Challenge Still Preeminent?, 36 B.C.L.Rev. 161, 187-96 (1994) (cataloguing cases affirming peremptory challenges on subjective grounds). Peremptory challenges based on such grounds are surely not automatically invalid. We do caution trial courts to hold these and similar reasons up to the stark, revealing light of exacting scrutiny. See United States v. Chinchilla, 874 F.2d 695, 698 (9th Cir.1989) (despite “great deference” to the district judge, decision reversed where explanation for peremptory challenge was not sufficiently clear and specific and therefore inadequate); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1728, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (Marshall, J., concurring) (expressing anxiety that facially neutral explanations similar to this case may render illusory the Batson protections against discrimination). Some of the objections put forth on this appeal may prove to be useful tools for trial courts in ferreting out discriminatory purpose. For example, if a juror with supposedly averting eyes is not questioned individually, the trial court may well be incapable of making a factual finding one way or another on that issue. Without a finding of fact in support, it may follow that the juror challenge should fail, particularly where coupled with a prima facie case of suspicious use of the challenge. C.E.J. v. State, 788 S.W.2d 849, 857 (Tex.Ct.App.1990) (“No examination or only a perfunctory examination of the challenged juror by the State weighs heavily against the legitimacy of a facially raee-neutral explanation and may illustrate sham or pretext.”). After all, a conscientious court cannot simply take the proponent’s word for it. State v. Goode, 107 N.M. 298, 302, 756 P.2d 578, 582 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 107 N.M. 308, 756 P.2d 1203 (1988). To merit a deferential standard of review, the trial court must actually perform the fact-finding function and exercise that degree of healthy skepticism deserving of the “special confidence” which is reposed in the trial court’s ability to distinguish sincerity from sham. Daniels v. State, 768 S.W.2d 314, 317 (Tex. Ct.App.1988); see also State v. Aragon, 109 N.M. 197, 202, 784 P.2d 16, 21 (1989) (trial court’s scrutiny must deinand an “articulate and explicit substantiation”); State v. Gonzales, 111 N.M. 590, 600, 808 P.2d 40, 50 (Ct.App.) (trial court must make “an informed decision” based on all the facts), cert. denied, 111 N.M. 416, 806 P.2d 65 (1991); State v. Moore, 109 N.M. 119, 126, 782 P.2d 91, 98 (Ct.App.) (“If the constitutional guarantee articulated in Batson is to have real meaning, the trial court must play a primary role.”), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 54, 781 P.2d 782 (1989). •In the ease before us, it is questionable whether the prosecutor’s rationale underwent sufficient scrutiny. On appeal, Defendant raises intriguing questions for our consideration. However, the burden remains with the opponent to make a record. Here, upon receiving the Batson objection, the trial court expressly requested guidance of counsel on how to proceed, even to the point of asking whether findings of fact were necessary. Defense counsel acquiesced in the court’s actions. Defense counsel made no effort to raise any of the interesting positions Defendant now posits on appeal. For example, we have no way of knowing whether the suspect juror, Mr. Tyson, averted eye contact or not. Counsel could have asked the court either to confirm or deny that fact, and if the court could not do so because the juror was not questioned individually, this would weigh heavily against the validity of the challenge. We do not know whether any other jurors, not challenged, displayed similar idiosyncrasies. The court was not asked to take notice of any such behavior. The record is all too silent.