Question

You are now in the role of the presiding judge. You need to decide whether the Batson challenge made by the defense is valid. What will you do?


You rule that the state has failed to offer a reasonable, believable reason for striking the last two women from the pool. For this reason, you sustain the defense objection as to those two women and caution the state about its strikes moving forward.

You rule that the state’s reasons are enough to establish neutrality and that the defense failed to show a pattern of discrimination as it attempted to do.

Answer 1

Ruling.

I have considered the defense’s Batson challenge and the parties’ arguments under the familiar three-step framework: (1) whether the defense made a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination, (2) whether the state has articulated race-neutral explanations for the strikes, and (3) whether those explanations are credible or a pretext for discrimination.

Findings and conclusions

1. Prima facie showing: The defense’s Batson challenge was sufficient to require the state to articulate race-neutral reasons for its peremptory strikes.

2. The state’s proffered reasons: For the majority of the strikes challenged by the defense, the prosecutor offered specific, race-neutral explanations (for example: prior criminal history, expressed bias or familiarity with a party, scheduling hardship, juror demeanor or inability/unwillingness to follow instructions). On the record before me those reasons are plausible and supported by the voir dire record and are therefore sufficient to satisfy the state’s burden of production.

3. Credibility / pretext: The state’s explanations for the last two women struck from the panel, however, are not believable on this record. The reasons given for those two strikes were internally inconsistent, contradicted by the voir dire record and by the prosecutor’s descriptions of other jurors with similar attributes who were not struck, and were advanced only after defense raised a Batson objection. In short, the state failed to carry its burden to show that those two strikes were motivated by race-neutral considerations rather than the prospective jurors’ sex.

Ruling

- I SUSTAIN the defense’s Batson objection as to the last two women struck. The state’s strikes of those two prospective jurors will not stand; they will be returned to the panel for seating (unless counsel agree otherwise). The state is Cautioned that future peremptory strikes must be supported by race-neutral, credible reasons that comport with the record.

- I OVERRULE the Batson objections as to the other challenged strikes. The state’s articulated reasons for those strikes were neutral and credible, and the defense has not demonstrated purposeful discrimination or a pattern sufficient to invalidate those strikes.

So ordered.