Court Opinion

ID: 9731299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:41:43.611764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:14.126233
License: Public Domain

ROBERT M. BELL,
Judge dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the limited remand ordered in this case to permit the prosecutor to supply race-neutral reasons for the exercise, more than six years earlier, of peremptory challenges to exclude African-American venirepersons from jury service. When initially accused of using *133his peremptory challenges systematically to exclude African-American venirepersons, the prosecutor stood firmly on his absolute discretion to strike whomever he chose, without interference from either the trial judge or defense counsel. Later, when the issue was raised at the hearing on respondent’s new trial motion, he submitted on the record.
The majority rejects respondent’s request for a new trial, perceiving it to be based on the prosecutor’s refusal “to articulate any reasons for the exercise of peremptory challenges against black venirepersons when he had an opportunity to do so, and he should not now be given a second chance,” when more than six years have elapsed since jury selection. The prosecutor not only did not explain his peremptory strikes, he gave no indication that he had an articulable basis (as opposed to a “hunch” or unparticularized “notion”) for their exercise. It is that circumstance— the failure of the record of the proceedings at which the objection was raised to reflect the reasons, or an articulable basis, for the prosecutor’s use of the peremptory challenges—that renders a limited remand inappropriate.
When respondent challenged the State’s peremptory striking of African-American venirepersons, the prosecutor refused to explain, noting that “neither defense nor the court for that matter can indicate to me, similar to a nol pros situation, who I can strike or who I can’t. It is absolutely discretionary on my part and that is the status of the case law as I know it to be at this time.” Significantly, he did not deny the respondent’s allegation even though, consistent with his position, he could have done so; denial of the discriminatory use of peremptories is not the same as explaining why certain venirepersons were challenged.1
*134The prosecutor had another opportunity to indicate that he had an articulable basis for the strikes he made. That the State had discriminatorily excluded African-Americans from the jury was a basis for respondent’s motion for new trial. Nevertheless, during the hearing on that motion, the prosecutor again refused to answer the challenge, preferring “to submit on the record.”
The record of the proceedings reflects nothing that even suggests that the prosecutor had any articulable basis for striking the only African-Americans on the venire. The fact that he had an absolute discretion to strike anyone for any reason, or for no reason, i.e., on a hunch or instinct, without interference from defense or court, tells us nothing about why he used the strikes; it could have been for race-neutral reasons, for other articulable bases, or just on a hunch. The prosecutor’s response to the respondent’s complaint certainly does not indicate that he had any articulable basis for the peremptory strikes. In any event, it does not corroborate what we are now told, that he did have an articulable basis.
In Stanley v. State, 313 Md. 50, 76, 542 A.2d 1267, 1280 (1988), we ordered a limited remand after determining both that the defendant had made out a prima facie case of discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges and the prosecutor “has never had an opportunity to respond to [that] prima facie showing.” In that case, however, the only argument offered against limited remand was “the lapse of some two years since the original jury selection,” a rationale we rejected. Id. Concerning the issue sub judice, the prosecutor’s comments during jury selection permitted an inference that, at the very least, the prosecutor denied *135exercising the challenges discriminatorily:2
[ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY]: If we look at the jury that has in fact been selected you will find that three out of the 12 jurors actually on the jury are black. That would approximately be 75 percent. So that would be a direct correlation to what the panel was, what the State and the Defense had to choose from originally.
If his objection is on an individual basis that each one when I struck the individual he wanted to object because he thought I was striking an individual because of their race, it is my understanding that the defense has the burden at that point to ask to approach the bench. I think the case is Batson versus Kentucky.
At that time if you felt I did something improper you would be able to inquire of me what my exact reason was, even though it was a peremptory challenge.
If his argument is as a whole the way it was done then I would just submit on what I have already argued.
313 Md. at 66-67, 542 A.2d at 1275. Thus, unlike the case sub judice, the record of the proceedings supported the limited remand—it made arguable the proposition that the prosecutor had an articulable basis, which may have been race-neutral, for the strikes.3 Gray v. State, 317 Md. 250, *136253, 562 A.2d 1278, 1279-80 (1989) and Chew v. State, 317 Md. 233, 239, 562 A.2d 1270, 1272-73 (1989) are to like effect.
In Gray, despite being told that he need not give any reasons for how he exercised his peremptory challenges, the prosecutor volunteered
that he had not systematically excluded black jurors; that he could recall having struck one black juror who had informed the court that he was personally acquainted with defendant’s attorney; that he could not then recall who the other black jurors were; and, that “it’s very difficult to articulate the reasons one selects and does not select a jury. Some times it is just their demeanor, their appearance, their body language—it may be their age, their occupation.
317 Md. at 253, 562 A.2d at 1279-1280. In Chew, two days after their use of peremptory strikes had been challenged, the prosecutors dictated into the record the reasons they struck four African-American venirepersons. 317 Md. at 239, 562 A.2d at 1272-1273 (1989).
In each of the cases from other jurisdictions cited by petitioner the record of the proceedings provides a basis for the remand.4 See Wright v. State, 186 Ga.App. 104, 366 S.E.2d 420, 421 (1988) (prosecutor not given an opportunity to explain use of peremptories); People v. Garrett, 139 Ill.2d 189, 151 Ill.Dec. 329, 333, 564 N.E.2d 784, 788 (1990) (prosecutor gave a partial explanation for the use of peremptories and started to explain further but was cut off by the trial judge); People v. Hope, 137 Ill.2d 430, 148 Ill.Dec. 252, 257-270, 560 N.E.2d 849, 855-886 (1990) (prosecution explained use of peremptories); Dedeaux v. State, 519 *137So.2d 886, 887-88 (Miss.1988) (prosecution refused to explain the use of peremptories, except to state that they were not racially motivated); People v. Jenkins, 75 N.Y.2d 550, 555 N.Y.S.2d 10, 15, 554 N.E.2d 47, 52 (1990) (prosecution’s offer to explain use of peremptories rejected by the trial court); People v. Thompson, 79 A.D.2d 87, 435 N.Y.S.2d 739, 743 (1981) (prosecution volunteered that it did not intend systematically to exclude blacks).5
Uncovering pretexts in the exercise of peremptory challenges is difficult at best, even when the issue is raised, and the explanation given, during the jury selection process itself. It becomes proportionately more difficult with the passage of time. Six years and several cases defining race-neutral reasons later, see Chew, 317 Md. at 245, 562 A.2d at 1275-1276; Tolbert v. State, 315 Md. 13, 18-24, 553 A.2d 228, 1230-1232 (1989); Adams v. State, 86 Md.App. 377, 382, 586 A.2d 810, 812 (1991); Stanley v. State, 85 Md.App. 92, 100-06, 582 A.2d 532, 535-539 (1990), cert. denied, 322 Md. 240, 587 A.2d 247 (1991), the potential for abuse is, to say the least, great. Also, whatever the trial court’s determination concerning the issue, appellate review of the decision is inevitable; thus, we ought be selective in ordering limited remands. Certainly we must not order them automatically.
In resolving this issue, the critical consideration is fairness, which at bottom is reflected in, and adds to, the integrity of the system. When the State is not afforded an opportunity, at the trial level, to respond to defense charges, it would be unfair not to allow it to do so after an appellate proceeding has found those charges sufficient, *138prima facie, to require a response. On the other hand, given the potential for abuse, the integrity of the process may be compromised when the State is given another opportunity to respond, notwithstanding its refusal to respond on the first occasion. That is especially the case when it is that initial refusal that caused the trial record deficiency on that critical point in the first place. In my opinion, therefore, there is a need for a bright line minimum requirement, which, if it does not exist, will preclude a limited remand. I would require, as a minimum, that the record of the proceedings reflect either that the State was not given the opportunity to respond to the defendant’s allegations or some indication that the State had an articulable basis for the strikes it made.
In this case, although given the opportunity to respond to the challenge, the prosecutor neither disputed the allegations nor provided any clue that he had a basis for his actions. The prosecutor’s belated offer to provide reasons for the strikes he made more than six years ago, which reasons, we are told, the State believes to be race-neutral, comes much too late.
The majority makes much of the fact that the defense counsel and prosecutor are available and that a complete transcript of the voir dire and jury selection process exists. While, in a vacuum, this may be helpful, what really is at stake is the extent to which reconstruction can be accomplished fairly. We have no proffer from defense counsel as to the availability of his records or his ability to recall information which would be significant in challenging explanations given by the prosecutor. That is at least as important a consideration as the prosecutor’s belated proffer.
There being no corroboration in the record of the proceedings that articulable reasons for the use of peremptories existed at the time they were exercised, coupled with the passage of more than six years before any proffer was made, I would order a new trial.
*139Judge ELDRIDGE has authorized me to state that he joins in the views expressed herein.

. It is interesting that a major reason for the limited remand in the case is the State’s proffer, made at oral argument, "that the prosecutor has retained his original jury list and notes and is prepared to offer reasons for the challenges that the State believes are race-neutral.” This indicates that it need not be the "reason” that triggers further inquiry, but an indication that there may be a “reason.” In other words, the majority finds a limited remand appropriate because the *134record now reflects that further inquiry may be fruitful. I would not order a limited remand because the record of the jury selection proceeding reflects the opposite.

. Denial of discriminatory exercise of peremptories permits the inference that the prosecutor has, at least, rationalized the exercise of the strikes and, thus, had an articulable basis for their exercise.

. When the jury was selected in the case sub judice, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) had not been decided, but, as the majority notes, Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), was being questioned. I believe the prosecutor should have been aware of Swain’s shaky foundation. See Lawrence v. State, 295 Md. 557, 567-71, 457 A.2d 1127 (1983); Evans v. State, 304 Md. 487, 525-28, 499 A.2d 1261 (1985). See also Chew v. State, 317 Md. 233, 237-39, 562 A.2d 1270, 1272-1273 (1989). Although Evans was decided after jury selection in this case, it referred to cases, decided before, which, foreshadowing Batson, discussed procedures for making out a prima facie case of discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges. The prosecutor in this case should not be rewarded for failing to keep abreast of trends in the law. Moreover, by his deliberate refusal to at least deny that he *136intentionally exercised the challenges discriminatorily, he took the risk that he would later be required to answer respondent’s allegations.

. In all of the cases cited, save one, People v. Garrett, 139 Ill.2d 189, 151 Ill.Dec. 329, 333, 564 N.E.2d 784, 788 (1990), the jury selection process occurred prior to Batson.

. People v. Scott, 70 N.Y.2d 420, 522 N.Y.S.2d 94, 516 N.E.2d 1208 (1987) is similar to the case sub judice insofar as the prosecution did not dispute the facts alleged, offer additional facts, nor explain the strikes. It is different, however, because the Court did not remand for further proceedings due to the combination of the absence of a record and the impossibility of securing one, the lapse of time, the unavailability of the presiding judge, and the fact that the memories of the participants had undoubtedly faded in four years.