Court Opinion

ID: 9686682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:01:04.390455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:21.345727
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 131. (dissenting). For the reasons set forth in Parts I and II of Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent, I agree that the majority's Bat-son analysis is flawed and that it erroneously concludes that the third step of Batson was satisfied in this case. I therefore join those parts of that dissent. I write separately, however, because I disagree with portions of the analysis in Parts III and IV of her dissent.
¶ 132. The majority correctly states that "this case concerns the third step of the Batson test." Majority op., ¶ 73. It also correctly notes that, under the *812third step of Batson, the circuit court "has the duty to weigh the credibility of the testimony and determine whether purposeful discrimination has been established." Majority op., ¶ 32. However, the majority's analysis essentially treats this duty as nonexistent and seems to indicate that the circuit court's role can be limited to determining that the reasons proffered by the prosecutor are race neutral.
¶ 133. The majority ignores the circuit court's proper role by focusing its step three analysis on confirming that the State advanced race neutral reasons, which is step two of Batson. The Chief Justice's dissent characterizes the majority's approach as "conflating the second and third steps of the Batson analysis." Chief Justice Abrahamson's Dissent, ¶ 102. Further, her dissent concludes that, as a result of the conflation, the majority errs "by concluding that the State's satisfaction of step two is sufficient, in and of itself, to defeat a charge of purposeful discrimination." Id.
¶ 134. I agree with these criticisms of the majority's step three analysis. By conflating step three into step two, the majority fundamentally undermines an important part of the process established by Batson to address discrimination in the jury selection process —namely, the circuit court's role in evaluating the evidence to determine whether purposeful discrimination has occurred. I therefore agree with the conclusions set forth in Part I of the Chief Justice's dissent.
¶ 135. I also agree that this record is insufficient for us to evaluate whether the circuit court properly engaged in the analysis required by step three of Batson. It is unclear whether the circuit court weighed the credibility of the testimony and made a determination that purposeful discrimination had not been estab*813lished. The court made no findings of fact. All that is set forth in the record is the court's conclusory statement: "Well, I think the State has made its case and it does have just cause to strike." Even the majority acknowledges that the circuit court did not elaborate on this conclusion. Majority op., ¶ 16. I therefore agree with the conclusions set forth in Part II of the Chief Justice's dissent.
¶ 136. However, I part ways with the Chief Justice with regard to portions of Parts III and IV of her dissent. Batson clearly places a duty on the circuit court to evaluate all evidence presented by the parties that is relevant to whether purposeful discrimination has occurred. However, I am not convinced that Batson requires an independent inquiry by the circuit court to the extent suggested in Part III or that the required analysis is as extensive as set forth in Part IV
¶ 137. While it is certainly within the circuit court's discretionary authority to take the initiative in developing evidence of discrimination, the court is not required to do so. It is the defendant's, not the circuit court's, burden of persuasion with respect to the issue of purposeful discrimination. See State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 176, 453 N.W.2d 127 (1990). Likewise, I do not think a Batson hearing necessarily requires an inquiry to the extent detailed in the Chief Justice's dissent.
¶ 138. I would remand to the circuit court to engage in the analysis required to satisfy step three of Batson. If the court determined that there was no purposeful discrimination, it would affirm the conviction. If the court determined that there was purposeful discrimination, the proper remedy would be a reversal of the conviction and a new trial. In either event, the *814circuit court must articulate its analysis on the record. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 139. I am authorized to state that JUSTICE DIANE S. SYKES joins this dissent.