Five Strikes, One Objection
Jury selection begins in a state robbery trial. The venire has 42 members, 9 of them Black. The defendant is Black; the victim is white. The prosecutor uses 6 of the state's peremptory strikes: 5 against Black venire members and 1 against a white venire member. Defense counsel raises a Batson objection. The prosecutor offers these reasons: Juror 7, a Black teacher, said she had been 'treated unfairly by police' during a traffic stop; Juror 12, a Black nurse, has a son convicted of assault; Juror 18, a Black unemployed man, 'looked disengaged'; Juror 23, a Black social worker, seemed 'too sympathetic to defendants'; Juror 30, a Black retiree, had a DUI 20 years ago; Juror 35, a white bank teller, was 'young and might be lenient.' Defense counsel shows that the state accepted a white nurse whose brother had a DUI, a white teacher who complained about a traffic stop, and a white retiree who had been unemployed for two years. The judge must rule.
1. Has the defendant made out a prima facie Batson case? Explain the three-step framework and where the case now sits.
Read the worked answer
Batson uses three steps. First, the opponent must make a prima facie showing that the strike was exercised on account of race; a pattern of strikes against Black venire members, plus the racial composition of the venire and the defendant's race, can suffice. Five of six strikes against Black jurors, when Black jurors are 21% of the venire, is a strong pattern, and the prosecutor's acceptance of white jurors with similar backgrounds strengthens the inference.
The judge has likely found a prima facie case, which shifts the burden to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation. The explanation need not be persuasive at step two; it must be clear and reasonably specific. The case now sits at step three, where the judge must decide whether the defendant has proved purposeful discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence, considering the prosecutor's credibility, the strength of the reasons, and comparative-juror evidence. The judge should not skip step three or treat the prosecutor's reasons as automatically sufficient.
2. Evaluate the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations using the record, including comparative-juror evidence. What weight should the judge give demeanor-based reasons?
Read the worked answer
The reasons are a mix. Juror 7's comment about unfair police treatment is race-neutral on its face, but the state accepted a white teacher who made a similar complaint, which undercuts the explanation and suggests pretext. Juror 12's son's conviction is a legitimate public-safety concern, but the state accepted a white nurse whose brother had a DUI; a DUI is less serious, so this comparator is weaker, though still relevant. Juror 18's 'disengaged' demeanor is vague and subjective; demeanor-based reasons are permissible but must be documented and evaluated with skepticism because they are easy to invent. Juror 23's sympathy is similarly vague. Juror 30's 20-year-old DUI is weak, and the state accepted a white retiree unemployed for two years, which does not compare directly. Juror 35, a white woman, was struck for youth, showing the state did not simply avoid young jurors. The judge should weigh the pattern, the comparator evidence, and the prosecutor's credibility. If the reasons are not genuine, the judge should find purposeful discrimination and grant a remedy.
3. If the judge finds purposeful discrimination, what remedies are available, and which is most appropriate before the jury is sworn?
Read the worked answer
Remedies include discharging the venire and starting jury selection over, reseating the improperly struck jurors and allowing the parties to exercise remaining strikes, or granting a new trial after conviction. Before the jury is sworn, the cleanest remedy is to reseat the wrongly struck jurors and continue selection with the same venire, because it corrects the discrimination without rewarding the state with a new panel. If the pattern infected the entire venire, a new venire may be necessary.
The judge should state findings on the record, identify which reasons were pretextual, and give the prosecutor an opportunity to offer additional reasons only if the judge has not yet ruled. The remedy must cure the constitutional injury, not merely admonish the prosecutor. A mistrial is not the automatic remedy, and the defendant need not show that the jury was actually biased. If the jury has already been sworn, the judge may consider a new trial. The judge should also preserve the record for appeal.