ILNews

Judges order new trial following juror issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A case involving the issue of a prosecutor’s use of a peremptory strike against an African-American member of the jury pool has appeared before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for the third time. This time, the judges vacated the two defendants’ murder and robbery convictions and ordered a new trial.

Styles Taylor and Keon Thomas, who are both African-American, were tried on charges of murder and armed robbery for the killing of a white gun store owner. The government sought the death penalty for both, although it wasn’t clear who actually shot the owner.

At issue is the peremptory strike of African-American juror Heshla Watson. She said during voir dire she wouldn’t be able to impose the death penalty on a non-shooter. When the District Court denied striking her because of her reservations about imposing the death penalty, the prosecutor then used the peremptory strike to remove her. The prosecutor used another peremptory strike to remove the next potential juror, another African-American. The defendants raised a Batson challenge, but the District Court denied it.

Taylor and Thomas were sentenced to life in prison. On the first appeal, the 7th Circuit ordered a limited remand for the District Court to supplement the record with its rationale for rejecting the Batson challenge to the use of the peremptory strike to remove Watson. The District Court found the prosecutor’s rational credible. On appeal again, the 7th Circuit remanded again on the same issue. This time, the prosecutor introduced seven new reasons, beyond Watson’s response during voir dire to the non-shooter question, as to why she was stricken. Again, the District Court credited the government’s nonracial reasons for striking Watson.

In United States of America v. Styles Taylor and Keon Thomas, Nos. 05-2007, 05-2008, 09-1291, the judges relied on Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338-39 (2003), which instructs that when ruling on a Batson challenge, the trial court should consider only the reasons initially given to support the challenged strike, not reasons offered after the fact.

“In this case, when the Batson challenge was made, the only reason offered by the prosecutor to justify striking Watson was her response to the non-shooter question. As such, on remand the court should have limited its inquiry and analysis to exploring that very question. But the remand hearing went much further," wrote Judge Diane Sykes.

Accepting the new, unrelated reasons extending well beyond the prosecutor’s original justification for striking Watson was clear error, and the government’s reliance on these additional reasons raises the specter of pretext, she continued. Because it’s “not possible to parse the district court’s decision, separating the permissible from the impermissible reasons supporting the court’s credibility finding,” the judges ordered a new trial.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT