X. Jury Issues
A. Jury Instructions
B. Juror Bias/Misconduct
C. Voir Dire - Fair and Impartial Jury
E. Miscellaneous Jury Issues
D. Batson
Supreme Court Decisions
D. Batson• Batson Challenges
Johnson v. California, 04-6964 (6/13/05)
> Defendant was charged with second-degree murder, and during jury selection, the prosecutor struck the only three African Americans in the jury pool. Defendant raised a Batson challenge, but the trial court did not require the prosecutor to respond to the challenge. The court relied on California law which states that “the objector must show that it is more likely than not the other party’s peremptory challenges, if unexplained, were based on impermissible group bias.” The trial court found that defendant had not met this burden, and overruled the Batson challenge. The California Supreme Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
* Holding: In order to determine whether a Batson violation has occurred in the exercise of peremptory challenges, the court must conduct a three-step process: (1) the objector must make out a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) the burden then shifts to the government to offer a race-neutral explanation for the challenge; and (3) the court must decide whether purposeful discrimination occurred. The Supreme Court found that California’s “more likely than not” standard was at odds with the first Batson step, whether the objector has made a prima facie case for discrimination. The Court ruled that, in order to make a prima facie case, an objector is only required to produce evidence “sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” Accordingly, the conviction was reversed.
• Batson Challenges
Miller-El v. Dretke, 03-9659 (6/13/05)
> In defendant’s capital murder trial, the State of Texas peremptorily struck ten of eleven remaining African-American jurors from the venire. Defendant objected to the state’s peremptory challenges, but the trial court permitted the ten jurors to be stricken. Defendant was convicted, and appealed through the Texas court system. Defendant then pursued a habeas corpus petition in federal court, eventually obtaining certiorari review in the Supreme Court.
* Holding: The Supreme Court held that the state had unconstitutionally exercised peremptory challenges in violation of Batson. The Court found that the state had questioned black jurors differently than white jurors during voir dire, had failed to strike similarly situated white jurors, had established a pattern of striking black jurors, and had a history in the prosecutor’s office of striking jurors based upon race. Accordingly, the Court found purposeful discrimination in exercising peremptory challenges and reversed defendant’s conviction.
• Batson Challenges
Snyder v. Louisiana, 06-10119 (3/19/08)
> Defendant was charged with murder and during the voir dire process at trial, the state exercised peremptory challenges against all five black jurors from a 36-juror pool. Defendant raised Batson challenges, and in regard to one of the jurors in particular, the state proffered two explanations for the strike. First, the state claimed that the black male juror appeared nervous, and second that he had student-teaching obligations at his college that may cause him to seek a quick compromise verdict. The trial court confirmed with the college that it would not be a problem for the juror to miss teaching during the week of trial. Defendant objected that the state’s reasons for the strike were pretextual, but the state court ultimately overruled defendant’s Batson objection. Defendant lost his state court appeals, and his federal habeas action, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
* Holding: Batson provides a three-step process for analyzing a claim that a peremptory challenge was based on race: (1) defendant must make a prima facie showing that the challenge was exercised on the basis of race; (2) the prosecutor then must offer a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and (3) in light of the parties’ submissions, the court must determine whether defendant has shown purposeful discrimination. In the case, the Court found that the prosecutor’s two reasons for striking the black juror were unconvincing. First, the nervousness of the juror was not considered by the trial court. Thus, the Court concluded that the trial court either did not recall the demeanor of the juror or instead decided to rely on the prosecutor’s second reason in upholding the strike. Second, the Court held that the prosecutor’s concern regarding the juror’s obligation to the college was undermined by the fact that the trial court confirmed that missing a week would not be a problem for the juror. Further, the prosecutor declined to strike several white jurors who had potentially more serious scheduling issues. Accordingly, the Court ruled that purposeful discrimination was proven and defendant’s conviction was reversed.
• Batson/Peremptory Challenges
Rivera v. Illinois, 07-9995 (3/31/09)
> During defendant’s state murder trial, he attempted to exercise a peremptory challenge against a juror, and the trial court refused to permit the strike based on Batson. The juror was seated, and was the foreperson of jury. Defendant was convicted, and the state court on appeal found that the Batson determination was error on the part of the trial court, but the error was harmless. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
* Holding: The Court held that the denial of a peremptory challenge is not a structural error that requires automatic reversal of a conviction. The Court thus ruled that the trial court’s determination was subject to harmless error. The Court noted that the parties agreed that the juror was not subject to removal for cause, and thus was fair and unbiased. Accordingly, the state court’s ruling was affirmed.
• Batson
Thaler v. Haynes, 09-273 (2/22/10)
> Defendant was charged in state court with murder. At trial, the prosecutor sought to strike a black juror. Defendant raised a Batson challenge, and the prosecutor replied that the juror’s demeanor was “not serious” and that she seemed predisposed against the death penalty. The judge presiding over the challenges was not the same judge who presided over the voir dire, so the court did not observe the juror’s demeanor. The court denied the Batson challenge and the juror was seated. Defendant was convicted and he lost his state court appeal. Defendant filed a federal habeas petition and the district court denied the petition. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed defendant’s conviction and held that a trial court must reject a proponent’s demeanor- based strike of a juror unless the judge personally observes and recalls the juror’s demeanor. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
* Holding: The Court held that, for the purpose of habeas review of a state conviction, no clearly established federal law requires a trial court to reject a demeanor-based strike of a juror where the court either did not observe or cannot remember the juror’s demeanor. Instead, the trial court must decide the Batson challenge based on what it can recall of the juror and the other evidence available in the record. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit’s decision was reversed and the case was remanded for the court to analyze the strike and the Batson challenge under the proper federal habeas standards.
Sixth Circuit
• Batson - Peremptory ChallengesU.S. v. Watford, 05-6184 (11/14/06)
> Defendant went to trial on drug trafficking and firearm charges and during voir dire the government exercised peremptory challenges against the only two African-Americans in the pool. Defendant raised a Batson challenge and the prosecutor indicated that one juror had a rap sheet, and that the prosecutor did not realize that the second juror was black. The district court overruled defendant’s Batson challenge and defendant appealed.
* Holding: In order to analyze an alleged Batson violation, the district court must conduct a three-step inquiry: (1) the opponent of the strike must make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination; (2) the burden then shifts to the proponent of the strike to offer a race-neutral explanation; and (3) the district court must consider the totality of the circumstances in order to assess whether discriminatory intent has been proven. In the case, the court found that a prima facie case had been made because defendant was black and the two stricken jurors were the only two black jurors in the pool. Second, the court ruled that the prosecutor had provided a race-neutral explanation for striking the jurors. Particularly, the court gave deference to the district court’s conclusion that the prosecutor had made an honest mistake in believing that the second juror was white. Finally, under all of the circumstances, the court found that purposeful discrimination had not been proven. Thus, the conviction was affirmed.
• Batson
U.S. v. Odeneal, 06-5885 (2/22/08)
> Defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute narcotics and during his trial, the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove two of the three remaining African-Americans in the venire. Defendant challenged one of the strikes under Batson, and the government indicated that it struck the juror because she sat on an earlier jury and voted for acquittal, and because she was recently divorced. Defendant countered that a white juror on the panel sat on the same earlier jury, voted for acquittal, and was not removed by the prosecutor. Further, the questionnaire indicating the juror’s divorce was over a year old, and the prosecutor did not ask the juror about the divorce during voir dire. The district court found no purposeful discrimination and denied defendant’s Batson challenge. Upon his conviction, defendant appealed.
* Holding: A three-step analysis is utilized in evaluating a Batson challenge: (1) the opponent of the strike must make out a prima facie showing of racial discrimination; (2) the burden then shifts to the proponent to come forward with a race-neutral explanation; and (3) the court must decide whether the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination considering the totality of the evidence. In the case, the court found that defendant made a prima facie showing and that the prosecutor offered a race-neutral explanation. The court concluded, however, that the strike of the challenged black juror was a pretext for discrimination. Defendant’s explanation showed that the prosecution failed to strike a similarly situated white juror who also voted for acquittal in the prior trial. Further, the prosecutor’s concern about the divorce was belied by the failure to inquire about the divorce during voir dire. Accordingly, the court found that the striking of the black juror by the government was purposeful discrimination, the conviction was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.
• Batson
U.S. v. Kimbrel, 06-6426 (7/3/08)
> Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. During voir dire, the government challenged defendant’s use of a peremptory strike against a white juror, arguing that it demonstrated a pattern of discrimination. Defendant’s counsel indicated that he struck the juror because he “detected a bit of ego” in the juror, and was concerned it would affect her service as a juror. The district court then ruled that defendant had not met his “burden of persuasion” to show a nondiscriminatory purpose for the strike, and disallowed defendant’s strike. Defendant was convicted after trial and appealed.
* Holding: In analyzing a Batson challenge, a district court must perform three steps: (1) the party opposing the strike must establish a prima facie case of race discrimination; (2) the burden of production then shifts to the proponent of the strike to provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and (3) the court must determine whether the opponent has proven purposeful discrimination. In the case, the court held that the district court improperly shifted the burden of persuasion to defendant at step two of the Batson analysis. The court emphasized that only the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike, but the burden of persuasion always remains with the opponent of the strike. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
• Batson
U.S. v. Torres-Ramos, 06-3580 (8/7/08)
> At defendant’s trial for a drug conspiracy, the government struck a black juror from the venire. Defendant raised a Batson challenge, and the government indicated that it struck the juror because his educational level was low. The district court determined that the government struck several white jurors with similar educational levels, and denied defendant’s Batson challenge. Defendant was convicted and he appealed.
* Holding: The court held that the district court erred in its analysis of the Batson issue by comparing the strike of the black juror with other jurors stricken by the government. Instead, the district court should have compared the black juror with white jurors who were empaneled on the jury. Because this information was not in the record, the court, sua sponte, obtained the juror questionnaires from the district court and found that three white jurors who were empaneled had a similar educational background to the black juror. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the district court for it to analyze whether the government’s conduct amounted to purposeful discrimination.
• Batson
Braxton v. Gansheimer, 07-3387 (4/2/09)
> Defendant was charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer and receiving stolen property. During the state court trial, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges against two of three African Americans on the panel. Defendant raised a Batson challenge and in regard to one of the jurors, and the prosecutor claimed that the juror’s demeanor seemed disinterested. Upon questioning by the prosecutor, the juror indicated that he had no problem being there. The trial court permitted the peremptory strike based on the prosecutor’s purported reason. Defendant was convicted, lost his state court appeal, and filed a federal habeas petition. The district court found that the prosecutor’s strike of the juror was race-based, and reversed defendant’s conviction. The state appealed.
* Holding: In analyzing a Batson challenge, the court must make a three-part inquiry: (1) the party opposing the challenge must make a prima facie showing of discrimination; (2) the burden then shifts to the proponent of the strike to provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and (3) the challenging party must then prove that the explanation is merely a pretext for discrimination. In the case, the court found that the state courts did not unreasonably apply federal law in finding no purposeful discrimination. The trial court made a determination that the prosecutor’s proffered reason for the strike was credible because the juror appeared, by his demeanor, disinterested in the proceedings, and that finding was entitled to great deference given the procedural posture of the case. Accordingly, the district court ruling was reversed, and defendant’s conviction was affirmed.