Three Peremptory Strikes and a Neil Objection
Broward County robbery trial. The venire has 42 members, 8 of whom are Black. The prosecutor uses peremptory challenges to strike three Black jurors: Juror 7, a Baptist minister whose nephew was convicted of robbery; Juror 19, a young Black man who lives in the neighborhood where the robbery occurred; and Juror 31, a Black woman who works as a paralegal for the public defender. Defense counsel objects under State v. Neil and Batson, noting that the prosecutor did not strike Juror 12, a white juror whose son was convicted of robbery. The prosecutor responds: 'Juror 7's nephew was convicted of the same crime; Juror 19 lives in the affected neighborhood; Juror 31 works for the public defender.' The judge says, 'Those are race-neutral reasons; objection overruled,' without further inquiry. Jury selection is still underway. Defense counsel asks the court to require the prosecutor to explain the disparity and to seat the struck jurors. The court must decide whether a prima facie case was made, what inquiry is required, and what remedy applies.
1. Did defense counsel make a prima facie showing under Neil/Batson? What must the trial judge do next?
Read the worked answer
Defense counsel made a timely objection and showed that the struck jurors were members of a distinct racial group. The strike pattern-three of eight Black jurors-plus the comparator white juror whose son was convicted of robbery and who was not struck, is enough to raise a strong likelihood that race was a factor. The burden then shifted to the prosecutor to provide race-neutral explanations. The prosecutor did so on their face. But the judge's job is not over: under Neil and Melbourne, the court must determine whether those explanations are genuine in light of all the circumstances. The court should compare the struck jurors with white jurors who had similar characteristics, ask follow-up questions, and make a record. The judge's immediate acceptance without inquiry was error.
2. Evaluate each of the prosecutor's three reasons. Which are potentially legitimate, and which are pretextual?
Read the worked answer
Juror 19's residence in the affected neighborhood could be a legitimate concern about familiarity with the area or sympathy for the victim, but it is also a common proxy for race if white jurors from similar neighborhoods were not struck. Juror 31's employment with the public defender could be a legitimate concern about sympathy for the defense, but the court must ask whether white jurors with criminal-defense connections were treated the same way. Juror 7's nephew's robbery conviction is the weakest reason because the prosecutor did not strike Juror 12, whose son was convicted of robbery. That comparator suggests the explanation is pretextual. The court should require the prosecutor to explain the disparity and should not accept a facially neutral reason if the record shows it is applied unevenly.
3. If the judge seats the jurors and the trial proceeds, what is the remedy on appeal if the appellate court finds a Neil violation?
Read the worked answer
If the trial court erroneously accepts a racially motivated peremptory challenge, the error is structural and requires reversal of the conviction and a new trial. The remedy is not harmless-error review because the error affects the composition of the jury. The appellate court should reverse and remand for a new trial. If the issue arises before the jury is sworn, the trial court can cure the error by denying the challenge and seating the juror. If the jury has already been sworn and the defendant is convicted, the conviction must be reversed.