Court Opinion

ID: 9479001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:05:48.065387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:46.268366
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I agree that a prima facie case of discrimination was made out. I agree that Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) requires us to give “great deference” to the trial court judge’s determination whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination in the jury selection context.
For those very reasons, however, I would affirm Judge Thompson’s ruling of no purposeful exclusion because of his better opportunity to gauge the credibility of the government’s explanation. Although one of the bases for challenge enunciated by the government — the place of residence of juror Osuna — was inadequate because an unchallenged juror resided in the same location, three other possible legitimate grounds remain — the age and appearance of the alternate juror and the occupation of juror Osuna. In its valuation of these latter three stated reasons for the government’s challenges, the trial court found no evidence of systematic exlusion of hispanic jurors and was satisfied with the government’s explanation. Summary though it might be, such finding should have been accorded the “great deference” required by Batson.