Blog
Peremptory challenge violated 6th Amendment
Posted by: Melville Johnson, P.C.
May 14, 2008
Topic: Federal Civil and Criminal Appeals
The attorneys with Melville Johnson, P.C. can represent you in litigating a Federal Appeal:
Deshaun Odeneal and Shane Andres (the Defendants), African-Americans, were convicted of various federal narcotics and firearms crimes. On appeal, they alleged that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges was based on race, in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79. Sixty-six individuals constituted the venire panel for the Defendants' trial, of whom four were African-Americans. The government used peremptory strikes to remove two of the African-Americans.
The Defendants focused on juror 194, an African-American woman. On questioning from the District Court (W.D. Ky.), the prosecutor stated he removed juror 194 because she had returned a not-guilty verdict in a previous trial, and because her questionnaire indicated she was going through a divorce. The attorneys with Melville Johnson, P.C. are experienced in representing clients in federal appeals alleging constitutional law violations. The District Court denied the Batson challenge by the Defendants.
To support their argument, the Defendants showed that the prosecutor did not strike a white juror who sat on the same prior jury with juror 194 which had returned the not-guilty verdict. Additionally, the jury questionnaires were more than a year old, lending to the presumption that the information they contained was outdated.
The attorneys with Melville Johnson, P.C. can provide representation in a Federal Appeals case. The Court of Appeals stated that a trial court should conduct a three-step analysis. First, the court must determine if the opponent of a strike has presented a prima facie case of racial discrimination. If so, the burden then shifts to the striking party to present a racially neutral reason for the strike. Finally, the trial court determines whether the striking party's reason is merely a pretext for discrimination.
The Court of Appeals noted that the trial court's decision on the question of discriminatory intent is accorded great deference on appeal. Deference, however, does not mean an absence of review. The Court held that in this case, the prosecution came forward with a race-neutral explanation, but the District Court erred when it concluded the explanation was not pretextual. Pretext would have been revealed had the District Court engaged in a proper comparison between the stricken juror 194 and the seated white juror. The Court went on to hold that if a prosecutor's reason applies equally to an otherwise similar non-black, such evidence tends to prove purposeful discrimination.
The Court also concluded that had the prosecution been genuinely concerned about juror 194's divorce, it could have clarified the matter by asking questions during voir dire. The fact that the prosecutor did not engage in such an inquiry was viewed as further evidence of discrimination. The case was remanded for a new trial on the basis of the successful Batson challenge under the Sixth Amendment.
The information in this summary was primarily derived from The Judicial View
Topics
Employment Discrimination
Erisa Retirement Benefits
Federal Civil and Criminal Appeals
Pension Rights
The International Employment Effects of SOX
Trust, Will, and Probate Litigation
Whistleblower
Recent Updates
July 02, 2008
Employee Able to Prove Age Discrimination, Despite Being Placed on a Performance Plan.
June 30, 2008
US Supreme Court Upholds Retaliation Claims Stemming from Racial or Age Discrimination Complaints.
June 25, 2008
Supreme Court to Decide Burden of Proof for Age Discrimination Claims.
June 23, 2008
Employee Who Lacks the Symptoms of Disabling Condition Is Not Recovered from Condition.
June 20, 2008
Female Coach Permitted To Pursue Discrimination Suit
