Court Opinion

ID: 9479479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:19:50.245353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:04.389840
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
dissenting, joined by BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
I join Judge Bowman’s well-reasoned dissent. I write separately only to express my concerns with reference to the nature and scope of a “Batson” hearing as apparently presently required by this circuit.
When Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) applied the holdings of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) retroactively, this circuit remanded pending cases which had not become final on direct appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 816 F.2d 433 (8th Cir.1987); United States v. Wilson, 816 F.2d 421 (8th Cir.1987). Unfortunately, as in this case, the remand opinions seem to indicate a need for an evidentiary hearing which includes, as in this case, a testimonial exercise complete with the examination and cross-examination of the prosecutor, under oath, by defense counsel.1 Such a procedure seemingly requires the river to rise higher than its source since Batson imposes no such requirement.
*1128If a prima facie case of invidious discrimination is established, in the manner outlined by Batson, the prosecutor is simply required to “articulate a neutral explanation related to the particular case” being tried. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1724. Such explanation becomes the focus of the credibility test referred to in Batson. See Id. at n. 21.2 Proper practice, in my view, would permit counsel for the defendant to orally respond to this articulation, the response being limited to matters before the court through pre-trial questionnaires or the voir dire examination. If necessary, the trial judge may ask (or permit counsel to ask) venirepersons additional questions prior to ruling on any Batson issues raised. However, as explained by Justice Powell, in response to arguments dealing with administrative difficulties imposed by Batson, the inquiry was not to become, in effect, a trial within a trial.
The procedures established by Batson, as opposed to those seemingly developed by this circuit, are well designed to accommodate the search for a fair jury within the context of reasonable trial management practices. And, the trial judges of this circuit, who are among the best in the federal system, are capable of fairly and reasonably administering the Batson requirements for the benefit of both the criminal defendant and the government.
Thus, I would disregard much of the improperly garnered testimonial work product gathered at the two-day Griffith trial; credit the explanation given by the prosecutor as was done by the trial judge; set aside, for the future, the evidentiary rebuttal procedure imposed as a result of our earlier efforts to accommodate Griffith; and affirm the trial court in this case.

. In most, if not all, of our cases remanded as a result of Griffith, we state that after the " 'neutral explanation’ for the peremptory strikes” is made, "[t]he defendant must then be given the chance to rebut the proffered explanation as a pretext.” Davis, 816 F.2d at 434. Apparently, this mandate has, understandably, been read by many district courts to require a full blown evidentiary hearing that permits a trip by the defense attorney through the inner recesses of the prosecutorial mind. However, except for the reference to Title VII procedures in footnote 21 of Batson, I find nothing in Batson that states, or even infers, that a testimonial procedure to rebut an allegedly pretextual explanation is required or desirable. Indeed, at the *1128point that the prosecutor is required to articulate a purportedly neutral reason for a strike, the defense is operating with the benefit of a prima facie finding of invidious discrimination that must be credibly overridden in the mind of the trial judge.

. And, as carefully explained by Judge Bowman, Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) dictates that the trial judge’s credibility rulings, made as a result of the Batson inquiry, "can virtually never be clear error.” Id. at 575, 105 S.Ct. at 1512.