Court of Appeals Reviews Batson Challenge Procedure
Wilson v. Strickland, No. 2005-CA-02235-COA slip op. (2007), was tried to a defense verdict in the County Court of Harrison County. The case arose from a car accident, in which the plaintiff – who is white – was a guest passenger in a car that “t-boned” a church van driven by the defendant, who is black. After striking two of three black venire members for cause, plaintiff’s counsel used his first peremptory challenge to strike the last black venire member. Asked to articulate a race-neutral reason for the challenge, see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), plaintiff’s counsel responded that the juror’s information card revealed that she was a Baptist, and that she worked at the Department of Human Services. Because the church van belonged to a Baptist church (not a party to the case), plaintiff’s counsel stated that the juror might favor the defense. The juror’s employment at DHS was not mentioned again during the colloquy.
The County Court found this basis for the challenge to be pretextual, especially because the plaintiff had not struck a white juror who was also a Baptist. The Circuit Court, sitting as an appellate court, reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the weight of the evidence was insufficient to counter the race-neutral reason given by the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals disagreed. It reversed the Circuit Court, and reinstated the defense verdict. In reaching this result, the Court of Appeals reviewed the proper procedure for making a Batson challenge and the standards for determining whether a peremptory challenge is race-neutral. The Court of Appeals noted that although Batson contemplates that the opponent of the strike should make a prima facie showing that the challenge is race-based, this preliminary requirement may be waived – as it was here – if the party making the strike volunteers a race-neutral reason for the challenge. The Court of Appeals also highlighted the very deferential standard of review that is due to the trial court’s determination whether a challenge is pretextual. And, reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals found that the defendant presented a “substantial argument” in opposition to the strike, and that the trial judge did not err in finding the plaintiff’s rationale for the strike was pretextual.
For more information, contact Margaret Cupples.
