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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT