Court Opinion

ID: 9779434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:50:35.197216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:26.388120
License: Public Domain

HOYT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s disposition of this case, but conclude that this case raises additional issues that the majority has failed to address. Specifically, the majority would accept non-racial explanations by the State as sufficient to rebut an otherwise prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection cases.
In Batson cases, I view the duty of the appellate courts as requiring a review of the entire jury selection record to determine if the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence. This does not require formulation of a new standard. We have followed a similar procedure in reviewing appeals from denials of motions to suppress evidence involving the issue of voluntariness of a confession. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964).
To begin this process, a trial judge has a duty to examine and evaluate the State’s explanation using a three-part test: First, the trial judge must determine whether the explanation is facially adequate; second, whether the explanation is refuted by the record; and finally, if both prior questions are resolved in the affirmative and negative, respectively, his decision turns on the credibility of the witnesses. See Slappy v. State, 503 So.2d 350 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987). An appellate court evaluates the trial court’s findings and conclusions following this three-pronged test keeping in mind that the first two prongs require evaluation as questions of law. In essence, whether the explanation is facially adequate or refuted by the record is a question of law.
I will first discuss the question of the facial adequacy of the State’s explanation because it is the area posing the most problems. When the State gives its explanation, a trial court cannot view its role as simply evaluating the evidence from a believability standard. Simply concluding that the State’s response is racially neutral and that the State intended no harm are inappropriate conclusions. This approach overlooks the first part of the evaluation process and permits the third area, concerning the credibility of the State’s response, to predominate the evaluation. A prosecutor may not rebut a defendant’s prima facie case merely by denying a discriminatory motivation, or by affirming his good faith in individual selections. It is incumbent upon the prosecutor to articulate a clear and reasonably specific neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (Emphasis added).
An explanation is facially adequate if after its examination, an inference of bias on the part of the juror relative to the law, the case, the parties, the attorneys, or the subject matter can be discerned. This is to say that a venireperson must express a trait or characteristic peculiar to him that may otherwise prejudice or color his reasoning, thereby preventing him from following the law and instructions in the case. In short, the bias must be the individual bias of the venireperson; not a group bias or that of the prosecutor. People v. Turner, 42 Cal.3d 711, 230 Cal.Rptr. 656, 726 P.2d 102 (1986). A prosecutor’s reliance upon “intuitions” or “gut-feelings” in excluding jurors is no more than a use of colloquial euphemism constituting the very same impermissible group bias outlawed. Batson, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. Moreover, failing to ask blacks venire questions before striking them also suggests an impermissible bias. Turner, 726 P.2d at 111. Similarly, explanations of what the venireper-son was wearing, his demeanor, and his *590body language, border on being euphemisms for improper racial stereotyping.
With these legal parameters in mind, I will turn now to the specific responses made by the State in response to the appellant’s objection. After the peremptory strikes had been exercised, the defense counsel called the prosecutor to the stand and adduced the following testimony relating to the striking of three black venireper-sons from the petit jury:
Q. Can you give the Court any justification other than racial grounds for challenging J.S. Spencer?
A. Yes, sir, I can. When I was interviewing Mr. Spender [sic] on Voir Dire, I felt that he was very unresponsive [sic] to my questions. I had to explain questions over and over to him. He stated several times that he really didn’t know if he could do jury service or not. I felt that he had great difficulty understanding my questions.
Further, his jury card indicated to me that he had no wife and no doubt, I felt that he would be unsuitable as a juror for that reason, and that he could not have an understanding of the terror of the victims that I was representing.
Q. Did you challenge preemptively [sic] every member of the panel who had no wife and no daughter?
A. No. I did not. I challenged them each on individual reasons.
Q. Can you state any reason other than race for challenging Elnora S. James?
A. Yes. Mrs. James, as I recall, looked extremely tired and was having real difficulty, it appeared to me, keeping awake. And I noted on that card that she was employed as a housekeeper at John Sealy which I know sometimes has shift work, and I thought she might be a night worker where she would have to work at night and have to come to Court in the daytime. I didn’t ask her, but I felt she couldn’t follow things. I had some concern that was the only job that she might have and would possibly have to take off and miss work.
Q. Did you challenge every worker who worked and who would have to take off their job to come to Court for jury service?
A. No. I am sure a lot of people have to take off from their jobs. I remember her because she looked so tired and it appeared to be that she had a hard time trying to keep awake.
Another reason I challenged her, she listed the ages of her children. She had six children and one was a 23 year-old male. I felt this was very similar to the defendant’s age.
Q. Did you preemptorily [sic] challenge every individual from the panel who had children the age of Craig Wayne Seu-bert?
A. I am not sure if I struck every one of them, but I did try to discuss with each one of them the ages of their children. It was a factor whether or not they had children and grown children, and whether they were of that age, was.
And to answer your question, no, I probably did not. I considered each one individual juror.
Q. Can you give the Court any reason other than race why you challenged preemptorily, [sic] Kenneth Oliver?
A. Yes. Mr. Oliver was the 34th juror originally. And by the time we got around to consulting with Mr. Oliver, as I recall the, reason we put him in was because one of the jurors at the very last moment got up and said he couldn’t be a part of the panel. We inserted Mr. Oliver and I asked him no questions individually at all, neither one of us. I didn’t know much about him. Period.
Q. Did you petition the court for time to question Mr. Oliver because he was just coming on the panel?
A. No, I didn’t. It was late.
Q. It was late and he was black, and you challenged him?
A. I challenged him.
Q. You are saying it was late and he was black and those might be your reasons for challenging somebody?
A. No, sir, I was only—
Q. He is black, isn’t he?
A. As far as I recall.
******
*591Q. Is it true or not true that every black member of the panel was challenged preemptively [sic] by the State with the exception of Mr. Leroy Cooper, who is a Texas Department of Corrections Guard?
A. He is seated on the jury. That’s correct.
Q. And he is the only black that was not challenged preemptorily, [sic] correct?
A. Correct.
A careful analysis of the reasons put forth by the prosecutor for striking black venirepersons indicates that the traits or characteristics that were fatal to venireper-sons who were black were not fatal to venirepersons who were white. The State struck venireperson Elnora James because one of her children was in the same age bracket as the appellant. However, the prosecutor readily admitted that she did not strike any white venireperson for that reason, although some had that defect. According to her, it was simply a “factor.”
Another trait fatal to venireperson James was that the State assumed, without asking, that she was a night-shift worker and that “that was the only job that she might have and would possibly have to take off and miss work.” Notably, the State did not offer this trait, although admittedly an assumption, as fatal for white venirepersons. This remark suggests yet another impermissible group bias behind the State’s challenge, i.e., working-class bias. Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co., 328 U.S. 217, 220, 66 S.Ct. 984, 985-86; Batson, 106 S.Ct. at 1723; see also Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 258, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1096, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).
It is my conclusion that each trait or characteristic that the State offered as fatal to venireperson James, admittedly, was not a trait or characteristic peculiar to her, but reflected the bias of the State. Additionally, none of the reasons stated as a basis for striking venireperson James was fatal to venirepersons who were white. More importantly, the reasons for striking venireperson James did not relate to the case at bar, the parties on trial, or the law of the case.
It is also clear, after examining the reason for striking Mr. Spencer and Mr. Oliver, that the stated reasons given had no relationship to the case, or were refuted by the State’s explanation and the record. What is strikingly apparent in this record is the fact that the prosecutor used her subjective state of mind to eliminate prospective jurors. A decision is subjective if it reflects the state of mind or feelings or temperament of the person making the decision, rather than the nature or character of the person being observed. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971).
Our method of jury selection as adopted is obviously designed to permit discrimination by those attorneys who wish to discriminate; however, to the extent that a defendant’s sixth amendment and 14th amendment rights to a fair trial and to have a jury chosen from a representative cross-section of the community are violated, the practice is wrong.
For these additional reasons I concur in the majority’s opinion.