Court Opinion

ID: 9869371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:27:04.914092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:01.118658
License: Public Domain

CRICHTON, J.,
dissents in part.
hi dissent from the majority opinion solely as to the remedy imposed. The majority reverses the decision of the trial court based upon the trial judge’s articulation of race-neutral reasons under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Before hastily employing the drastic remedy of reversing *40the conviction, I would instead remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to permit the state to offer race-neutral reasons for its peremptory strikes in accordance with the second step of Batson. See, e.g., Foster v. Chatman, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1737, 1747, 195 L.Ed.2d 1 (2016) (“[I]f that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question.”) (emphasis added) (summarizing Batson three step process).
In reversing the conviction, the majority speculatively asserts that a “meaningful hearing on this issue is all but impossible” in the district court. But, in my view, a meaningful hearing on this issue in the trial court is certainly possible, and in fact could be easily accomplished, because: (i) there were at least two lawyers of record, one of whom is still employed by the district attorney’s office and could represent the state on remand, and (ii) despite the fact that the original lead prosecutor no longer works for the district attorney, he is presumably available should the current district attorney subpoena him to testify or otherwise | ¡.seek his participation in such a hearing.1 Compare, e.g., State v. Myers, 99-1803 (La. 4/11/00), 761 So.2d at 503 (reversing conviction after finding no opportunity for a “meaningful hearing” on remand for consideration of Batson first step where trial judge had died). As a result, I believe that the requirements of Batson would be satisfied by first remanding to the trial court to permit the state to, in the first instance, advance race-neutral reasons for its peremptory strikes.

. The jury of 12 persons in this case was comprised of nine white individuals and three African American individuals.