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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT