Court Opinion

ID: 9480605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:52:36.849461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:47.155428
License: Public Domain

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), holds that a prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge to remove even one African-American juror from a jury due to racial considerations is unconstitutional. “[T]he command of Batson is to eliminate, not merely to minimize, racial discrimination in jury selection.” United States v. David, 803 F.2d 1567, 1571 (11th Cir.1986). When a prosecutor's strike of an African-American juror is objected to and the district court finds a prima facie case of discrimination, the district court is required to make inquiry of the prosecutor to determine whether the strike is based upon racial or racially neutral grounds. In this case, the defendant objected to the strikes, and the district court properly required an explanation. The district court improperly failed to rule on whether Allison established a prima facie case and improperly found that the prosecutor’s stated reasons were sufficient. The majority misapplies the law as pronounced by the Supreme Court and this circuit. Allison satisfied the Batson test for a prima facie case of discrimination. In addition, the prosecutor's articulated reasons, quoted in the majority opinion, are the kind of nebulous explanations which Batson rejects.
Allison demonstrated that he satisfied the first prong of his Batson claim by showing “that he is a member of a cognizable racial group ... and that the prosecutor ... exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of [Allison’s] race.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723 (citations omitted). Under the second prong of Batson, Allison was “entitled to rely on the fact, as to which there can be no dispute, that peremptory chal*1539lenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits ‘those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.’ ” Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723 (quoting Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559, 562, 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed. 1244 (1953)). Allison is permitted to rely on this second prong to meet the third prong of the Batson test, which requires demonstration of an inference that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. “[T]he defendant must show that these facts [demonstrated under the first and second prongs] and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. In essence, the second prong collapses into the third as a means of demonstrating the inference of discrimination.
The majority holds that Allison failed to establish a prima facie case, in part, because he did not point to “other relevant circumstances” which would support the inference of a discriminatory motivation for the strikes. In fact, Allison alleged that several of the white jurors had the same backgrounds, education, and other attributes as the three challenged African-American venire persons. See United States v. Young-Bey, 893 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir.1990) (circumstance supporting the inference of discrimination includes the fact that “white persons were chosen for the petit jury who seemed to have the same qualities as stricken black venirepersons.”). Allison also alleged that discriminatory intent may be inferred from (1) the percentage of pros-ecutorial peremptory challenges used to strike African-American members of the venire, (2) the pattern of striking African-American venire members absent articula-ble and particular reasons, and (3) the prosecutor’s general assertion that the strikes were not racially motivated. I would hold that Allison established the inference of discrimination required under the third prong of Batson.
The majority supports its conclusion by discussing the number of African-American jurors seated, the percentage of African-Americans on the panel, the number of white jurors struck, and the number of unused peremptory challenges. Although these factors have some relevance, they are not controlling factors under our law.
The majority’s sole case support for the outcome in this case is United States v. Dennis, 804 F.2d 1208 (11th Cir.1986). In Dennis, the court held that the appellant failed to make out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination because of similar circumstances, including the presence of two African-Americans on the jury and the government’s failure to use all of its peremptory challenges. The weight of case law in the Supreme Court and in this circuit runs contrary to such a conclusion, as demonstrated by the cases cited in the majority’s opinion. “[UJnder Batson, the striking of one black juror for a racial reason violates the Equal Protection Clause, even where other black jurors are seated, and even when valid reasons for the striking of some black jurors are shown.” United States v. David, 803 F.2d at 1571. It should be noted that the court in Dennis did not cite any precedent for its conclusion that the presence of African-Americans on the jury undercut any inference of discrimination. Thus, to the extent that Dennis supports affirmance in this case, I would suggest that Dennis should be overruled in banc.
The district court arguably found that Allison established a prima facie case because it expressly requested the prosecutor to state his reasons for challenging African-American jurors. At that point, the burden shifted to the prosecutor to “articulate a clear, reasonably specific and neutral explanation for challenging the black jurors.” United States v. David, 844 F.2d 767, 769 (11th Cir.1988). The prosecutor could not rebut the prima facie case by merely denying that he had a discriminatory motive or by asserting generally that he typically relies on neutral reasons for challenging jurors. “The prosecutor ... must articulate a neutral explanation related to the particular ease to be tried.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1724. The prosecutor’s general denial of discriminatory intent in this case is not specific or *1540particularized enough to rebut Allison’s pri-ma face case. Therefore, I would reverse and remand this case for a new trial.