ILNews

Circuit judges order court to take another look at Batson challenge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Based on the record before them, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges were unable to make an informed decision about the District Court’s decision to deny a defendant’s Batson challenge, so the judges sent the case back to the lower court.

In United States of America v. Anthony Rutledge, No.10-2734, Anthony Rutledge appealed the denial of his Batson challenge relating to the removal of the only two African-Americans from the jury pool. The prosecutor moved to strike Mr. Powell based on his response to a question that mentioned he thought that his views might be overruled if on the jury, that the others will think he was taking Rutledge’s side because they were both the same race. The prosecutor moved to strike Ms. Martin because she appeared agitated and frustrated during voir dire. Both potential jurors said there was no reason they couldn’t be a fair and impartial juror.

The District Court accepted the prosecutor’s reasons, which were not based on race, for striking the two but didn’t say why it was accepting the strike of Ms. Martin. Rutledge was convicted at trial, although the opinion does not state what he was charged with.

The third step of a Batson challenge is at issue here – the trial court deciding whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful discrimination. The 7th Circuit concluded that a remand is necessary for the District Court to make explicit findings for both jurors, citing United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d 657, 666 (7th Circ. 2009), and United States v. Taylor, 509 F.3d 839, 845 (7th Cir. 2007).

In regards to Martin, the trial court never credited the demeanor-based reason for the prosecutor’s peremptory strike, yet just repeated that the demeanor-based justification was a “nonracial-related reason,” wrote Judge Diane Wood. The District judge never evaluated whether her demeanor can credibly be said to have exhibited the basis for the strike attributed by the prosecutor.

In regards to Powell, the court’s statement that the prosecutor’s reason for striking him was “nonracially-related” did not do the job, continued the judge.

The federal appellate court also addressed a “potential worrisome element” in the resolution of the Powell strike – that the prosecutor in the case stated she is African-American as though to possibly convince the judge that her race-neutral explanations were credible.

“The abbreviated exchange on the record is troubling, though, because it can be read as a request by the government for the judge to assume that simply because the prosecutor is herself African-American, she would not engage in prohibited discrimination,” she wrote. “While a judge may consider a variety of factors in making a credibility determination, it would be wrong for a judge to assume that a prosecutor of the same race as a juror would not engage in discrimination against that juror simply because of their shared race.”

On remand, the District Court must make findings on the issue mentioned in the opinion and if the passage of time prevents the District Court from making such findings, or if it finds the prosecutor’s reasons aren’t credible, then it must vacate Rutledge’s conviction.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT