Court Opinion

ID: 9855219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:21:09.664245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:43.782539
License: Public Domain

Sears-Collins, Justice,
dissenting.
When it comes to grappling with racial issues in the criminal justice system today, often white Americans find one reality while Afri*670can-Americans see another. This perception gap is evident in the majority’s affirmance of Rodney Dwayne Lingo’s conviction. As I cannot ignore the race-based innuendo and subtle stereotyping used to exclude people of color from Lingo’s jury, I must dissent.
1. The prosecutor exercised 100 percent of his peremptory strikes to exclude the first ten black jurors called from the venire. He was content with none of the African-American jurors called before he exhausted his strikes. This is an “overwhelming pattern” of strikes, as recognized by the majority, and establishes a powerful prima facie inference of racial discrimination.6 Majority opinion at 664 (quoting Ford v. State, 262 Ga. 558, 559 (423 SE2d 245) (1992)). It is up to the prosecutor to present “concrete, tangible, race-neutral and neutrally-applied” reasons for the strikes exercised against black venire members. Ford, 262 Ga. at 560. In deciding whether the reasons given by the prosecutor were “neutrally applied,” we consider whether the reasons given could apply equally to white jurors who were not struck by the prosecutor. Williams v. State, 262 Ga. 732, 734 (426 SE2d 348) (1993). “A prosecutor’s failure to explain the apparently disparate treatment of similarly situated white and black jurors . . . diminishes the force of his explanation for striking a black juror.” Ford, 262 Ga. at 560, n. 1.
Even if racially-neutral and neutrally-applied reasons are given, the simultaneous existence of any racially motivated explanation “ ‘vitiates the legitimacy of the entire (jury selection) procedure.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Strozier v. Clark, 206 Ga. App. 85, 88 (424 SE2d 368) (1992). This is so because in the eyes of the law, a person’s race is simply unrelated to his fitness as a juror, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, 87 (106 SC 1712, 90 LE2d 69) (1986), and the presence of any racial bias whatsoever in the jury selection process renders total racial neutrality impossible.
2. Under the law set forth above and for the reasons that follow, I disagree with the majority that the prosecutor successfully rebutted the prima facie case of racial discrimination in this case.
(a) The prosecutor explained that one potential black juror was struck because: he was “touchy” about one of the prosecutor’s first questions and “hostile from there on”; he had previously testified in a trial as a character witness; and he had taken some criminal justice classes. The voir dire examination of this juror is set forth verbatim *671as follows:
BY MR. LUKEMIRE [the prosecutor]:
Q Mr. Cothran, my name is Ed Lukemire; I’m with the District Attorney’s office. Mr. Cothran, that’s Mr. Cook, he’s the defendant’s attorney, and each of us will ask you just a few questions and then hopefully we can get you on the road before too much longer. I know it’s been a long week for you. This is a potential death penalty case, and because of that I have to begin by asking you this question: Are you so conscientiously opposed to capital punishment that you would not vote for the death penalty under any circumstances?
A No.
Q Okay. So sometimes you would and sometimes you wouldn’t?
A Yes.
Q In a death penalty case, what happens is, and you may already be aware of this — you’re a criminal justice major; you’ve taken some courses in criminal justice; is that right?
A How was that revealed to you, sir? Was I supposed to answer that?
Q Well, that’s fine, but you put it on your questionnaire.
A Oh, okay. I have forgot I put it down there, but I have taken some courses.
Q So you already know this, I don’t know, but in a death penalty case what happens is that trial is divided into two parts. The first part is called a guilt-innocence phase and the jurors there, the only thing they’re considering is whether or not the defendant did some or all of what he’s accused of. They don’t — in phase one they don’t look at punishment at all; it’s just guilt or innocence.
Now, if and only if in phase one they find the defendant guilty of murder, then they move into phase two which we call the sentencing phase, and in the sentencing phase the obvious purpose is to determine what punishment to give for someone that’s already been convicted of murder.
So the question I need to ask, let’s assume for a minute that you’re on the jury and that y’all have gone through phase one and you found the defendant guilty of murder; you move into phase two. You understand that you would be authorized, the Court would authorize you *672to consider the death penalty as a sentence, but you’d also be obligated to consider life as a sentence? Now, would you be able to consider both of those options?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Do you know Mr. Cook or any member of his family or have you ever used his law firm for any of your business?
A No, sir.
Q Okay. Do you know the defendant or his family?
A No, sir.
Q Now, this trial will last several days and during the trial the jurors will be sequestered, so — and I don’t know which hotel it would be or what, but will that fact present any great hardship for you or some big problem for you?
A No, sir.
Q Okay, is there anything about your home situation or your business that would keep you from giving this case your undivided attention.
A No, sir.
Q Okay, now, you know, there’s no problem if there is stuff we need to know so we can, you know, get all the information we can. Are you suffering from any physical infirmity that would prevent you from serving as a juror, like a hearing impairment or anything like that?
A No, sir.
Q Okay. Do you belong to any organization or any denomination, church denomination that is officially opposed to capital punishment?
A No, sir.
Q Can you think of any friend or relative that you have that, you know, if you sat on the jury and you made a decision and then went home and it wasn’t what they wanted you to decide, they’d give you a hard time; can you think of anybody like that?
A No, sir.
Q Now, sometimes when a verdict is rendered, the jury is polled, and let’s assume in this case you’re on the jury and that y’all have brought back a sentence of death. Would you be able to stand in open court along with the other jurors, would you be able to stand and say, Yes, that’s my sentence?
A If I had reached that determined statement or determined thought based on what I have heard, then I could stand.
Q It’s just, you know, some jurors have a real problem standing in front of other people and saying, Yes that’s my ver*673diet, so we have to ask that. Okay. Have you ever had any jury experience before?
A No, sir.
Q Okay. You understand that the function of a juror would be, of course, to hear the evidence, all the evidence, but also to, you know, go in the jury room to listen to the other 11 people, to take into consideration the other 11 people’s thoughts about the case and finally to let those other 11 people know what that juror thinks about the case, its input?
A Yes.
Q All right. Would you be able to perform those functions as a juror?
A Yes, sir, I could.
Q Okay. Do you recognize the principle of law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and certainly the fact that they’ve been indicted or that they sit in the courtroom does not make them guilty or —
A I understand that.
Q And if the Court charges you that the State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt —
A Right.
Q — will you follow that charge?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, if the Court charges you that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt, but is simply proof to a moral and a reasonable certainty, would you follow that charge?
A If within myself, with the evidence that I have heard and able to reach an agreement within myself, then I would follow that.
MR. LUKEMIRE: Thank you.
With respect to this juror, the trial court stated:
As far as Mr. Cothran was concerned, that one got very close to the line, but I do recall when he did make the response concerning the criminal justice degree that it definitely, just from an oral response, I was not looking at him, it caught my attention that he did seem to be belligerent, and I will be very candid about this, had there been no blacks on this jury, the court would have had real trouble with not possibly finding there might have been some type of pattern, just with [this juror].
*674Contrary to the trial court’s statement, however, the fact that two black jurors were added to the jury after the prosecutor had exhausted his peremptory strikes is irrelevant to the inquiry of whether this juror was struck because of racial bias, and does not eliminate the obvious racial discrimination in the prosecutor’s strike against this juror. Moreover, the trial court’s statement indicates that but for this irrelevancy it would have found racial bias in the striking of this juror. Furthermore, the above portion of the record reveals that other than being initially surprised by the prosecutor’s knowledge of information the juror had provided on his juror questionnaire, the juror showed no indication of being “hostile” towards the prosecutor. Even giving great deference to the trial court, I still cannot believe that a white juror who gave exactly the same responses to the voir dire questions that this juror gave would have been labeled “hostile” and “belligerent.”7 The hostility and belligerence found so readily by the prosecutor and the trial judge from this juror’s one response evoke stereotypical images of the angry black man, who, at the slightest provocation and at even the faintest appearance of challenging the status quo will be tagged “hostile” or “belligerent.”8
The prosecutor further explained that he excluded this juror because he had served as a character witness in another proceeding. This reason was not neutrally applied, however, because the prosecutor accepted without complaint a white juror who had previously testified in a trial as a character witness. The prosecutor also explained that he did not want this juror on the panel because he had taken criminal justice classes. While a juror’s legal background often justifies a strike, in this case the prosecutor asked the juror not one question as to whether the juror would be influenced by the classes he had taken, and when asked specifically whether he could follow the charge of the court the juror responded that he could do so.
To conclude, even assuming that the fact that the juror had taken some criminal justice classes was a non-racially motivated reason for striking this juror, both the prosecutor’s application of the racial stereotype of the “hostile black male” and his failure to neutrally apply his other reason for striking this juror force me to conclude that improper rácial motives played a role in the prosecutor’s striking the juror.
(b) The prosecutor explained that he struck one prospective ju*675ror, who was young, black, unemployed, and lived with his unemployed girl friend and her three children, because he “made it very clear he did not want to be here” due to his financial problems, and might not be able to concentrate. When asked if he would have problems with service, this juror responded as follows:
That’s going to cause me big problems. It’s going to cause me a heap of problems. See, I’ve got a heap — I’ve got bills all the way up to my neck to pay. I can’t keep, I can’t keep running down here and all because my girlfriend ain’t working, and it’s kind of hard on me. I can’t go.
The record reveals that when asked, the juror stated that he would not have a problem focusing his attention on the trial. Moreover, the prosecutor accepted a white juror who was unemployed, and at least three other white jurors with whom the prosecutor was content stated specifically that jury service would be inconvenient or would pose a financial hardship for them. Compare the explanation given by one of the white jurors who expressed a problem with service on financial grounds:
I’d like to tell the court that I’m a contract laborer. I work for General Telephone, and if I don’t work, I don’t get paid, you know. I have no sick leave, no vacation leave, and I support my family, and it’s, you know — you know, I know I have a civil duty to be here, but it’s hard to make a living on what I have, you know, the money we receive.
While the white juror may have been better able to articulate his position, he made it no less clear that he did not want to be there. Yet the prosecutor accepted the white juror.
I would find on the basis of either of the above jurors alone that the prosecutor failed to overcome the powerful prima facie case of racial discrimination. In rebuffing the Batson challenge, the majority stresses the Batson edict that the trial court is to be afforded “great deference.” Batson, 476 U. S. at 98, n. 21.1 do not believe that “great deference” means ignoring blatant discrimination. The additional manifestations of racial bias described below buttress the conclusion that the prosecutor’s intent was to exclude from the jury as many black jurors as possible.
(c) With respect to seven of the black jurors struck by the prosecutor (including a prospective alternate juror), the prosecutor explained that the jurors had some aversion to the death penalty. The record reveals that one of the black jurors struck for this reason repeatedly indicated she was willing to impose a death sentence if warranted by the circumstances, and two others were hesitant about the *676death penalty, but said that they could consider it as a form of punishment after hearing the evidence. However, in ruling in the state’s favor on the defendant’s Batson motion, the trial court stated his recollection that while both black and white jurors expressed hesitancy about the death penalty, the black jurors struck for that reason were more adamant against the death penalty than were the white jurors. Even if we defer to the trial court’s decision that this is a race-neutral reason, the fact remains that included among the prosecutor’s reasons for striking those jurors were other reasons that were not well-founded in the record or were not neutrally applied among the black and white jurors. For example, the prosecutor reasoned that one potential juror would not be able to state her decision when polled in court. The record reveals, however, that the juror initially misunderstood the prosecutor’s question; when it was clarified, she said that she would be able to give her decision when polled. Also, the prosecutor stated that one black prospective juror was struck because the juror had a hearing problem. While the prosecutor said that the juror had a hearing problem, the record indicates that the juror never claimed to have a hearing problem, and the state had no objection to a white juror who told the prosecutor twice during voir dire that he had a hearing problem.
(d) The prosecutor stated that four black jurors were struck, among other reasons, because they knew witnesses. The record reveals that the state accepted six white jurors who also knew witnesses. Two of the four black jurors struck for this reason indicated they knew witnesses by sight but did not have personal relationships with those witnesses. Among the white jurors accepted by the state who knew witnesses, however, one played cards with two witnesses, while another had lived in the same neighborhood and belonged to the same church as a witness.
While race-neutral reasons were also given for the black jurors who knew witnesses (three were among those black jurors who expressed objection to the death penalty, one had a previous shoplifting conviction), the additional presence of reasons which were not applied neutrally among the races clearly taints these strikes with racial bias.
3. At least one of the prosecutor’s strikes against a black juror was exercised solely on race-based grounds. That is enough in itself to reverse Lingo’s conviction. Furthermore, the prosecutor’s failure to apply the reasons for his strikes neutrally among many of the black and white prospective jurors, though subtle, was manifest and pervasive and clearly demonstrated that racial motives served in part as the basis for the strikes. While the prosecutor may have included arguably race-neutral reasons among his reasons for striking most black prospective jurors, the additional racial basis for his strikes so infected the jury selection process that the appellant could not have *677received a fair trial.
Decided December 3, 1993
Reconsideration denied December 17, 1993.
Jeffrey L. Grube, for appellant.
Edward D. Lukemire, District Attorney, Michael J. Moore, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Matthew P. Stone, Staff Attorney, for appellee.
The majority states that I would apply Strozier v. Clark, supra, to “creat[e] a presumption that any reason for striking a black juror, not also used against a white juror — regardless of other reasons for striking a black juror — is, per se racially motivated.” Majority opinion at 667. That is not correct. To the contrary, as the majority itself notes, the inference of discrimination in this case is created by the prima facie case, majority opinion at 664-665, which the prosecutor carries the burden of overcoming. I would apply to this case the rule established by this court that where there is a strong prima facie case, the prosecutor’s reason for his strikes must be neutrally applied. Moreover, contrary to the implication in the majority, I do not say that any one non-neutrally applied reason renders the jury selection invalid, but that when inequity in application so permeates the process, the fact that a race-neutral reason was also given cannot, as it could not in Strozier, remedy the discrimination. The majority opinion does not refute the Strozier rule, but implies that it should not apply in this case because the “bad” reasons in Strozier were facially race-based or pretextual, whereas in this case it is necessary to look at all of the reasons given by the prosecutor to discern the overriding racial foundation for the strikes. I believe that this is a dangerous distinction without a difference, as subtle racial discrimination is just as damaging, if not more so, as overt racial discrimination.
We stand at the edge of the 21st century and many people of color in this country are still not free from insidious racial discrimination such as that manifested in this case. The constitutions of the United States and of Georgia demand the total, uncompromising racial neutrality of the jury selection process to ensure every American’s right to fully participate, and Rodney Dwayne Lingo did not receive that neutrality. My candor in this dissent may lead some to believe that I am “hostile.” I am not. I am, however, fully committed to the promise of the U. S. and Georgia constitutions to afford their rights and privileges to all citizens.

 While a challenge on appeal to the validity of a prima facie case may be precluded “[o]nce a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination,” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U. S. _ (111 SC 1859, 1866, 114 LE2d 395) (1991); see also Lewis v. State, 262 Ga. 679, 680 (424 SE2d 626) (1993), the strength of the prima facie case remains relevant to the question of whether that case has been overcome. See Ford v. State, 262 Ga. 558 (423 SE2d 245) (1992).

 The American Heritage Dictionary defines “belligerent” as “ready to fight; pertaining to or engaged in warfare.” Even understanding that such considerations as body language and tone of voice are not apparent from the record, could anyone reading the foregoing transcript really describe this man as belligerent?

 This nation is great because it encourages rather than discourages strong individuals to participate in our system of justice. It should be no detriment that an individual exhibits the ability to freely think about issues and express himself accordingly.