Court Opinion

ID: 9634065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:20:08.681175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:39.241817
License: Public Domain

GRABER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur fully in the opinion. I write separately only to encourage prosecutors to state their reasons for peremptory strikes at the time of a Batson challenge.
As the opinion correctly holds, of course, if no prima facie case of discrimination has been made, a prosecutor is not required to give any explanation. The right to challenge a juror without cause is one that any litigant understandably wishes to guard. On the other hand, the burden of explaining the reasons for a challenge — in the alternative to arguing that no explanation is required — is minimal. Judicial economy would be well served. See, e.g., Paulino v. Harrison, 542 F.3d 692 (9th Cir.2008) (in a second appeal, upholding habeas relief in a Batson case when the prosecutor could not remember her reasons for exercising per*928emptory challenges at an evidentiary hearing held eight years after the trial). So would confidence in the fairness of a trial because, in fact, prosecutors usually have good and permissible reasons for their challenges; refusing to state them can create unnecessary suspicion, as well as unnecessary litigation.