You are on page 1of 119

REL:

06/14/2013

Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .

ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS


OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013

CR-05-2371

Jason M i c h a e l Sharp v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (CC-99-2473) Court

On Remand f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t a n d on A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g on R e t u r n t o S e c o n d Remand PER CURIAM. The o p i n i o n i s s u e d on M a r c h 23, 2012, on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing on r e t u r n t o s e c o n d r e m a n d ,


1

i s w i t h d r a w n , and t h e

On O c t o b e r 18, 2012, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t v a c a t e d t h i s C o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t o f M a r c h 23, 2012, a n d remanded t h e c a s e f o r us t o " a l l o w t h e p a r t i e s t o b r i e f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d b y t h e


1

CR-05-2371 following opinion i s substituted Jason because Michael Sharp was therefor. capital of a rape murder or By an a

c o n v i c t e d of course

i t was rape,

committed see

d u r i n g the

attempted

13A-5-40(a)(3),

A l a . Code 1975.

v o t e o f 11 t o 1, t h e j u r y recommended t h a t S h a r p be to death. The t r i a l c o u r t accepted the j u r y ' s to death. Court remanded t h i s case

sentenced

recommendation

and s e n t e n c e d S h a r p On appeal, t h i s

f o r the

trial CR-

c o u r t t o amend i t s s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r . 05-2371, Aug. ("Sharp I") . and 2008] II"). The 29, 2 0 0 8 ] ___ On return So. 3d ___ to

S h a r p v. S t a t e ,

[Ms.

( A l a . C r i m . App. we affirmed [Ms.

2008) Sharp's

remand, v. , Supreme

conviction Dec. 19,

sentence. So. 3d

Sharp

State,

CR-05-2371, App. 2008)

( A l a . Crim. Court,

("Sharp

Alabama

after

granting Court's of of

certiorari judgment. review,

r e v i e w of Sharp's The Court, that

petition,

reversed this

a p p l y i n g the p l a i n - e r r o r record creates an

standard inference

held

"the

t r i a l c o u r t ' s B a t s o n [v. K e n t u c k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986),] o r d e r and ... a d d r e s s t h o s e i s s u e s by f u r t h e r o p i n i o n . " For the most p a r t , o u r M a r c h 23, 2012, o p i n i o n a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e s S h a r p r a i s e s i n h i s most r e c e n t b r i e f s t o t h i s C o u r t , and o u r o p i n i o n t o d a y i s l a r g e l y a r e s t a t e m e n t o f o u r M a r c h 23, 2012, o p i n i o n , w i t h a d d i t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n n e c e s s i t a t e d by the Supreme C o u r t ' s o r d e r . 2

CR-05-2371 discrimination peremptory 2009] Ala. R. on the p a r t Ex , Because the record of the S t a t e " [Ms. i n i t s use 1080959, of i t s Dec. 4, 45A, to

strikes. So. 3d P. on

p a r t e Sharp,

( A l a . 2009) .

See

a l s o Rule

App.

t h e S t a t e had not been r e q u i r e d i t s reasons f o r the use

articulate peremptory C o u r t was violation

of i t s

strikes

and b e c a u s e

t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e Supreme a had

not adequate of Batson v.

f o r t h a t Court t o determine whether Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),

o c c u r r e d , t h e C o u r t remanded t h e c a s e f o r t h i s C o u r t t o o r d e r further proceedings. Ex p a r t e S h a r p , So. 3d a t . This

C o u r t t h e n remanded t h e c a s e f o r t h e t r i a l B a t s o n h e a r i n g a t w h i c h t h e S t a t e was for its peremptory strikes

c o u r t to conduct a

to p r o v i d e i t s reasons African-American the

against

v e n i r e m e m b e r s and t h e t r i a l c o u r t was t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r p r o s e c u t i o n had used i t s s t r i k e s manner. So. See 3d Sharp v. S t a t e ,

in a r a c i a l l y discriminatory CR-05-2371, Mar. ("Sharp III"). 5, 2010]

[Ms.

( A l a . C r i m . App.

2010)

On remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o m p l i e d w i t h o u r i n s t r u c t i o n s and, that on A p r i l 27, 2010, conducted a Batson h e a r i n g . for During striking

h e a r i n g , the

S t a t e p r o v i d e d i t s reasons

A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n veniremembers.

The t r i a l c o u r t a l l o w e d S h a r p

CR-05-2371 to file a w r i t t e n response to the African-American the prosecution's In reasons for

striking

veniremembers. reasons

his

response, Africanthe State 2010,

Sharp argued t h a t

State's

for striking Thereafter, On

A m e r i c a n v e n i r e m e m b e r s were p r e t e x t u a l .

f i l e d a w r i t t e n r e p l y to Sharp's response. the t r i a l had court entered an o r d e r reasons

J u l y 16,

f i n d i n g t h a t the

prosecution strikes

offered

race-neutral

f o r i t s peremptory

against African-American were n o t p r e t e x t u a l . The

v e n i r e m e m b e r s and trial court

that those reasons the

found f u r t h e r t h a t

S t a t e t h e r e f o r e had n o t v i o l a t e d B a t s o n i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i t s peremptory [Ms. App. strikes. This 23, Court 2012] affirmed. So. 3d S h a r p v. (Ala. State, Crim.

CR-05-2371, Mar. 2010)

( o p i n i o n on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ("Sharp I V " ) .

and r e t u r n t o

s e c o n d remand) The 2012, the

A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , i n an o r d e r

dated October

18,

s u m m a r i l y v a c a t e d our case "with

j u d g m e n t i n S h a r p IV and that [the Court issues of

remanded Criminal the

instructions

Appeals] allow trial issues court's by

the p a r t i e s t o b r i e f the Batson order and that

r a i s e d by address In

i t then

those

further

opinion."

(No.

1111489).

compliance on

w i t h t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s , we

ordered b r i e f i n g

CR-05-2371 the issues raised by the trial court's Batson order. We and now we The have again

p a r t i e s c o m p l e t e d b r i e f i n g on December 17, 2012. again reviewed


2

the

trial

court's Batson

order,

affirm. The jurors. cause.

venire

in

Sharp's

case

c o n s i s t e d of

80

potential

The t r i a l c o u r t e x c u s e d n i n e o f t h e v e n i r e m e m b e r s f o r Of the remaining and 57 jury panel were of 71 members, 14 The defense were

African-American struck 30

Caucasian. and the

prosecution struck 29 an to 3 two on

potential

jurors,

p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s , w i t h e a c h p a r t y ' s l a s t s t r i k e s e r v i n g as alternate remove juror. The State used 11 of i t s 30 removing defense strikes a l l but struck sat

African-American from

veniremembers, the venire. One The

African-Americans African-American

veniremembers.

African-American

In i t s b r i e f f i l e d a f t e r t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 18, 2012, o r d e r , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t Sharp's Batson c l a i m i s not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s Court b e c a u s e i t was not raised at t r i a l . The S t a t e made e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a r g u m e n t t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t when i t was i n t h e p r o c e s s o f d e c i d i n g Ex p a r t e S h a r p , b u t t h e c o u r t nonetheless addressed Sharp's p l a i n - e r r o r Batson c l a i m . C o n s e q u e n t l y , we a g r e e w i t h S h a r p t h a t t h e law-of-the-case d o c t r i n e p r e c l u d e s us f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h e m e r i t s o f t h e S t a t e ' s argument t h a t S h a r p ' s B a t s o n c l a i m i s n o t p r o p e r l y before t h i s Court. See, e.g., Clemons v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-100772, June 29, 2012] So. 3d , ( A l a . Crim. App. 2012).
2

CR-05-2371 Sharp's jury.


3

At the Batson hearing, the State a r t i c u l a t e d i t s reasons for striking the 11 African-American veniremembers. as f o l l o w s :
4

R e g a r d i n g J u r o r no. 55, t h e S t a t e p r o v i d e d

" [ T ] h e S t a t e w o u l d t h e n s t a r t w i t h J u r o r Number 55. And t h e S t a t e w o u l d p u t f o r t h as t h e r e a s o n s t h a t J u r o r Number 55 was s t r u c k b y t h e S t a t e , f i r s t a n d f o r e m o s t , t h a t t h e j u r o r was o p p o s e d t o t h e d e a t h penalty. A n d t h a t was e v i d e n c e d i n the juror's q u e s t i o n n a i r e , s p e c i f i c a l l y Q u e s t i o n Number 53, a n d then i n t h a t the j u r o r had responded t h a t they would a u t o m a t i c a l l y vote against the death penalty. Also i n 53 t h e j u r o r w r o t e o p p o s e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e death penalty. "And t h e n i n t h e g e n e r a l v o i r d i r e o f t h e p a n e l , the j u r o r expressed o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e death p e n a l t y . And i n i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e , t h e j u r o r s a i d t h a t she c o u l d o n l y i m p o s e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i f she h a d t o . "Further, the prosecution noted that i n the j u r o r ' s work t h a t she d e a l t e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h v i c t i m s o f abuse i n h e r work a n d t h a t she was a w i t n e s s i n many c a s e s . She was i n , s p e c i f i c a l l y - "Do y o u have h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e ?

Sharp i s Caucasian. I n B a t s o n , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t b l a c k v e n i r e m e m b e r s c o u l d n o t be s t r u c k f r o m a b l a c k d e f e n d a n t ' s j u r y b e c a u s e o f t h e i r r a c e , a n d i n Powers v. O h i o , 499 U.S. 400 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , t h e c o u r t e x t e n d e d i t s d e c i s i o n i n Batson t o white defendants. See G r i m s l e y v. S t a t e , 678 So. 2d 1194, 1195 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) .
3

We s e t o u t t h e S t a t e ' s r e a s o n s i n t h e o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e S t a t e p r o v i d e d them a t t h e h e a r i n g .
4

CR-05-2371 "She was a s o c i a l s e r v i c e c a s e w o r k e r , And t h a t was o f some c o n c e r n t o t h e S t a t e i n t h a t c a s e , as I have n o t e d . She h a d b e e n a w i t n e s s i n many c a s e s b e c a u s e o f h e r work. " J u r o r f u r t h e r acknowledged counsel t h a t she knew t r i a l

"And t h e n l a t e r o f l e s s e r i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e S t a t e was t h e f a c t t h a t she knew Y o u r Honor i n t h e case. "We a l s o n o t e d i n h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t h e r s o n h a d b e e n a v i c t i m o f an a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r c a s e a n d that there had never been any c o n v i c t i o n o r p r o s e c u t i o n i n t h a t a t t e m p t e d murder case. "And, J u d g e , t h o s e a r e b a s i c a l l y t h e that t th hee S t a t e s t r u c k J u r o r Number 5 5 . " ( R e c o r d on R e t u r n t o Remand The no. 37: " [ T ] h e r e a s o n s t h a t we s t r u c k J u r o r Number 37, g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , i s he was o p p o s e d t o t h e d e a t h penalty. On h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , on Q u e s t i o n Number 53 t h a t a s k e d a b o u t p e r s o n a l , e t h i c a l , o r m o r a l beliefs against the death penalty that you'd a u t o m a t i c a l l y v o t e a g a i n s t i t . He l e f t i t b l a n k . He d i d n o t a n s w e r t h a t . A n d t h e n i t was h i s f e e l i n g s on t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y were u n c o v e r e d d u r i n g t h e v o i r d i r e p o r t i o n o f t h e t r i a l i n t h a t he s a i d he h a d a r e l i g i o u s o r m o r a l o b j e c t i o n t o t h e d e a t h penalty. "And t h e n a l s o i n i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e he s a i d t h a t t h e B i b l e teaches t h a t vengeance i s t h e L o r d ' s . " A d d i t i o n a l l y i n i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e he s a i d he 7 State ("RTR"), R. 5-6.) for striking Juror reasons

gave t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s

CR-05-2371 w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o l i v e w i t h h i m s e l f i f he h a d a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v i n g t h e death penalty. T h a t was t h e m a i n r e a s o n t h a t he was struck. "And f u r t h e r t h e r e was h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h e r e was j u s t - - t h e r e were s o many q u e s t i o n s t h a t were l e f t b l a n k by t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r , and i n c l u d e d i n those, I've a l r e a d y mentioned Question Number 53, as w e l l as 54. He l e f t b l a n k Question 55. He l e f t b l a n k Q u e s t i o n 56 h a v i n g t o do w i t h s h o u l d a d e f e n d a n t have e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f counsel. Question 60 a b o u t w h e t h e r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y was u s e d t o o o f t e n o r n o t . "We a d d i t i o n a l l y n o t e d h i s o c c u p a t i o n , J u d g e , as b e i n g a c u s t o d i a n , a n d t h a t was o f some i m p o r t a n c e t o u s , b e s i d e s t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i s s u e s , i n t h a t as the Court i s well aware that this was a c i r c u m s t a n t i a l case t h a t r e a l l y t h e t h r u s t o f the S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e was DNA e v i d e n c e , as t h e C o u r t knows i s somewhat s o p h i s t i c a t e d and t e c h n i c a l evidence. So h i s s o p h i s t i c a t i o n s o c i a l l y or p r o f e s s i o n a l l y was n o t e d b y t h e S t a t e . "And t h o s e a r e t h e r e a s o n s t h a t t h e S t a t e s t r u c k J u r o r Number 3 7 . " (RTR, R. 8-10.) As t o J u r o r no. 65, t h e S t a t e gave t h e f o l l o w i n g reasons:

"Juror Number 65, Question 53 in his q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a g a i n h a v i n g t o do w i t h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , he a n s w e r e d i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e t h a t he would a u t o m a t i c a l l y vote a g a i n s t the death p e n a l t y . A d d i t i o n a l l y i n Q u e s t i o n 54 when t h e q u e s t i o n a s k e d i f you have some f e e l i n g s a g a i n s t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y which f a l l short of the previous question, this p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r w r o t e , 'Vengeance i s mine s a i t h t h e L o r d , no man.' I t s a y s , ' b e l i e v e l i f e i n p r i s o n instead.' T h a t was Q u e s t i o n 54. 8

CR-05-2371 "And t h e n a l s o i n Q u e s t i o n 62 he a l s o a n s w e r e d i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e t h a t you would a u t o m a t i c a l l y v o t e for i t s imposition. And then i n v o i r d i r e o f t h e e n t i r e g r o u p , t h e g e n e r a l v o i r d i r e , he r a i s e d h i s h a n d as h a v i n g a r e l i g i o u s o r m o r a l o b j e c t i o n t o t h e death penalty. " I n i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e he s a i d , ' I am n o t i n favor of the death penalty.' He a d d i t i o n a l l y s a i d t h e r e m i g h t be some i n s t a n c e s where maybe a j u r o r c o u l d impose t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . When a s k e d i n i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e , c o u l d y o u impose t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , he s a i d , ' I d o n ' t t h i n k s o . ' "He a l s o n o t e d i n v o i r d i r e t h a t he h a d some f a m i l y o b l i g a t i o n s t h a t might p r e v e n t him from j u r y service. "And t h o s e were t h e m a i n f a c t o r s o f why Number 65 was s t r u c k . " (RTR, R. 10-11.) Regarding J u r o r no. 39, t h e S t a t e explained: Juror

"The n e x t w o u l d be J u r o r Number 39. The f i r s t t h i n g o f n o t e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n t h i s c a s e was t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s j u r o r was S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t , h i s r e l i g i o n , t h a t t h e C o u r t had engaged t h e e n t i r e p a n e l i n g e n e r a l v o i r d i r e a b o u t p o s s i b l e s e r v i c e on S a t u r d a y and t h a t t h i s would c o n f l i c t w i t h h i s religious beliefs. T h a t was o u r p r i m a r y r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g h i m , t h a t was he n o t e d he was S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t i n h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n Q u e s t i o n Number 8 and t h e n a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t i n v o i r d i r e . "We a l s o n o t i c e d f r o m h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t he was u n e m p l o y e d a n d t h e r e was s c a n t i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m h i m a b o u t h i s employment. T h a t was a n o t h e r f a c t o r in that. "And then i n Question 9 Number 44, i t says

CR-05-2371 something about him o r f a m i l y i n t h e m i n i s t r y , and he i n d i c a t e d i n t h e r e - - i t was n o t c o m p l e t e l y c l e a r , I b e l i e v e , j u d g e . I t s a y s do you o r any r e l a t i v e o r close personal friend belong t o any g r o u p o r o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h [A.] m i n i s t e r s t o p r i s o n e r s o r inmates, B. Provides legal, social, or other a s s i s t a n c e t o p r i s o n e r s , inmates, or ex-cons? He a n s w e r e d y e s . A n d i t s a y s p l e a s e e x p l a i n . He s a i d p r i s o n m i n i s t r i e s . T h a t , t o o , was a f a c t o r i n o u r e l i m i n a t i n g him from t h e j u r y . his "We a l s o n o t e was a p a s t o r . i n Question 26 t h a t a f r i e n d of

"Then i n Q u e s t i o n Number 79 a t t h e e n d o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , h a v i n g t o do w i t h m e d i a a n d w h e t h e r a particular juror could be f a i r , this juror a n s w e r e d , J u r o r Number 39 a n s w e r e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t , n o t be f a i r . " A l s o t h e r e was some--on Q u e s t i o n Number 24, he d i d n ' t f u l l y a n s w e r , have y o u , f a m i l y , f r i e n d b e e n accused of a crime. But there was no more i n f o r m a t i o n on t h a t o t h e r t h a n y e s . "And t h o s e a r e t h e r e a s o n s t h a t t h e S t a t e J u r o r Number 3 9 . " (RTR, R. 11-12.) The State s a i d as f o l l o w s f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r no. 52: struck

"Next w o u l d be J u r o r Number 52. The f i r s t t h i n g we n o t e d i n r e v i e w i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was t h a t t h i s j u r o r ' s r e l i g i o u s d e n o m i n a t i o n was t h a t o f a Sabbath Keeper, which i s n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l t o Seventh Day A d v e n t i s t , w h i c h b r o u g h t up t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a c o n f l i c t as f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d a b o u t t h e e a r l i e r j u r o r and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e C o u r t h a v i n g t o work t h r o u g h S a t u r d a y on t h i s c a s e . "We a l s o n o t i c e d i n Q u e s t i o n Number 26 t h a t t h i s 10

CR-05-2371 j u r o r h a d s t u d i e d o r was s t u d y i n g t o become a minister. And i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h a t was n o t the kind o f j u r o r we were looking for. We a d d i t i o n a l l y n o t e d t h a t t h i s j u r o r ' s work h i s t o r y and p r e s e n t employment was t h a t o f somewhat m a n u a l labor, f o r k l i f t operator. And a g a i n , with the r e a l i t i e s o f t h e c a s e we h a d b e f o r e u s , J u d g e , w i t h t e c h n i c a l , s o p h i s t i c a t e d DNA e v i d e n c e , t h a t was n o t t h e k i n d o f j u r o r we were l o o k i n g f o r . "We a l s o n o t e d i n Q u e s t i o n s 22 j u r o r was a c t u a l l y a w i t n e s s t o a h e r b r o t h e r was, i n f a c t , m u r d e r e d convicted s e v e r a l times of v a r y i n g he was m u r d e r e d . a n d 23 t h a t t h i s murder and t h a t a n d he h a d b e e n offenses before

" I t was j u s t o u r f e e l i n g t h i s j u r o r was a l i t t l e too connected t o the process, i n the r o l e of a w i t n e s s o r i n t h e r o l e o f a f a m i l y member h a v i n g t o do w i t h a m u r d e r . "And t h o s e were t h e - - t h o s e were t h e r e a s o n s t h a t we s t r u c k J u r o r Number 5 2 . " (RTR, R. 12-13.) As reasons: " N e x t , J u d g e , w o u l d be J u r o r Number 27. And f i r s t and foremost t h a t o c c u r r e d t o us was h e r employment, t h a t b e i n g a p a c k e r on an a s s e m b l y l i n e at Target D i s t r i b u t i o n Center. Her previous employment was at Burger King [fast-food restaurant]. A n d t h a t was s o m e t h i n g o b v i o u s l y t h a t the State i n i t s quest f o r j u r o r s t h a t p o s s e s s e d a l i t t l e more s o p h i s t i c a t i o n e i t h e r i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l o r a s o c i a l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , t h a t was o f some c o n c e r n t o u s , as t h e k i n d o f employment s h e h a d . " I a l s o n o t i c e d , J u d g e , i n Q u e s t i o n Number 79 a t 11 to Juror no. 27, t h e S t a t e s e t out the f o l l o w i n g

CR-05-2371 t h e v e r y e n d o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , when t h e q u e s t i o n asks, ' I f you've h e a r d anything i n t h e media r e g a r d i n g t h i s c a s e , do you f e e l y o u c o u l d s t i l l be f a i r and i m p a r t i a l ? ' And she c i r c l e d no. That c a u s e d us c o n c e r n . "And of equal c o n c e r n was t h e f a c t that a c c o r d i n g t o o u r r e c o r d s she h a d b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h what a p p e a r s t o be s i x c o u n t s o f p o s s e s s i o n o f marijuana i n the second degree. I t appeared t h a t she h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d on a t l e a s t one o f t h e s e counts. These c a s e s a r o s e b a c k i n 1990. Of some i n t e r e s t t o me was t h e f a c t I was e x c l u s i v e l y a d r u g p r o s e c u t o r f r o m '88 u n t i l '94, so I w o u l d have b e e n in the o f f i c e . She a p p e a r e d t o have l i v e d h e r e i n M a d i s o n C o u n t y , t h e s e c h a r g e s came o u t o f M a d i s o n County. and (RTR, "And a l l o f t h o s e were o f c o n c e r n t o t h e S t a t e t h a t ' s t h e r e a s o n s we s t r u c k J u r o r Number 27."

R. 14-15.) R e g a r d i n g J u r o r no. 11, t h e S t a t e explained:

" J u d g e , t h e n e x t one w o u l d be p r o s p e c t i v e J u r o r Number 11. A n d t h e r e a s o n s t h a t t h e S t a t e s t r u c k her, first, we n o t e d she t o o was S e v e n t h Day Adventist. F o r t h e r e a s o n s e a r l i e r s t a t e d , she was not d e s i r a b l e t o us. "We a l s o n o t i c e d i n h e r employment q u e s t i o n s , s p e c i f i c a l l y Number 6, t h a t she h a d b e e n - - s h e was u n e m p l o y e d . A n d when a s k e d p r e v i o u s work e x p e r i e n c e f o r t h e l a s t 10 y e a r s , she h a d none. I t a s k e d what h e r h u s b a n d ' s w o r k was. Apparently she h a d an ex-husband. A n d when a s k e d what work he d i d she s a i d unknown. "And a g a i n , i n t h e employment a r e a , i n l i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e we were p r e s e n t i n g t h a t was n o t a d e s i r a b l e j u r o r to us. 12

CR-05-2371 " I n Q u e s t i o n Number 79, she d i d n ' t g i v e an a n s w e r i n Q u e s t i o n Number 79 a b o u t m e d i a a n d w h e t h e r she c o u l d be f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l . "We h a d n o t e d t h a t she d i d have a c o n v i c t i o n f o r i s s u i n g a w o r t h l e s s check through our r e c o r d s .
"

" W e l l , she d i d n ' t f u l l y answer Number 74. And, J u d g e , t h o s e were t h e r e a s o n s t h a t t h e S t a t e s t r u c k J u r o r Number 1 1 . " (RTR, R. 15-16.) The following State noted that i t struck Juror no. 64 f o r the

reasons:

"The n e x t , J u d g e , w o u l d be J u r o r Number 64. The f i r s t t h i n g we n o t e d was t h a t t h i s j u r o r h a d s e r v e d on t h r e e j u r i e s i n t h e p r e v i o u s s i x y e a r s b e f o r e t h e t r i a l i n the i n c i d e n t case. One o f t h o s e c a s e s h a d r e s u l t e d i n a not g u i l t y v e r d i c t . We n o t e d when t h i s j u r o r f i l l e d o u t h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e , when some of t h e p r i n c i p [ l e s ] o f t h e c r i m i n a l l a w was d i s c u s s e d t h a t she h a d c i r c l e d r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t i n Q u e s t i o n 50. A n d on Q u e s t i o n 55 a l s o a s k e d i f t h e r e was any o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . A n d she s a i d , 'I'm a great person.' And i n g e n e r a l , Judge, our f e e l i n g w a s - - o u r f e e l i n g was t h a t she was, f o r l a c k o f a b e t t e r t e r m , a l i t t l e b i t t o o much o f a somewhat arrogant, p r o f e s s i o n a l j u r o r . Because i n g e n e r a l v o i r d i r e she was f a i r l y v e r b a l i n t h a t p r o c e s s a s k i n g about whether t h e death p e n a l t y has a p p e a l s . She was j u s t - - s h e was p r e t t y v o c a l . And t h e f a c t t h a t she h a d h a d p r i o r s e r v i c e seemed t o b e , a g a i n , f o r t h e l a c k o f a b e t t e r w o r d , seemed t o be somewhat o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l j u r o r . One o f t h o s e p r i o r j u r i e s she h a d r e t u r n e d a n o t g u i l t y . "We a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h i s j u r o r was a n u r s e . 13 As

CR-05-2371 t h e C o u r t w e l l remembers, t h e v i c t i m i n t h i s c a s e was a n u r s e , as was one o f o u r k e y w i t n e s s e s . And we were o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t o r i s k a j u r o r s e c o n d g u e s s i n g what a k e y w i t n e s s i n o u r c a s e , N u r s e K i m H e l l u m s h a d done i n t h e h o s p i t a l , was s o m e t h i n g t o be a v o i d e d . "And reasons." Juror Number 64 was struck for those

(RTR, R. 16-17.) R e g a r d i n g J u r o r no. 38, t h e S t a t e provided:

"The n e x t one, J u d g e , w o u l d be J u r o r Number 38. One o f t h e f i r s t t h i n g s we n o t i c e d on t h i s was t h i s p a r t i c u l a r j u r o r ' s c h e c k e r e d employment h i s t o r y , t h a t she was p r e s e n t l y w o r k i n g as a c a r r e n t a l a g e n t and h a d o n l y b e e n on t h e j o b f o r two weeks. And f r o m h e r employment h i s t o r y s e c t i o n , Q u e s t i o n 17, she h a d n e v e r b e e n a t any e m p l o y e r f o r more t h a n t h r e e months. So i t a p p e a r e d t o t o t a l r o u g h l y s e v e n months o f work i n t h e l a s t 10 y e a r s . She d i d n o t a p p e a r t o be s o p h i s t i c a t e d t o us i n f i l l i n g o u t h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i n t h a t she m i s s p e l l e d W a l - M a r t as one o f h e r p r e v i o u s e m p l o y e r s as W a l - M a r t s . " T h e r e was some q u e s t i o n s she d i d n o t a n s w e r s u c h as Q u e s t i o n Number 50. She s a i d she knew some attorney i n Michigan, b u t n o t much--in Question Number 26, b u t n o t much more i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n t h a t . And what was n o t e d f r o m my s e a t i n g c h a r t , J u d g e , i s t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r j u r o r a p p e a r e d t o me t o be somewhat i n a t t e n t i v e a n d d i s i n t e r e s t e d d u r i n g t h e v o i r d i r e process. "And f o r t h o s e 38." (RTR, R. 17-18.) As t o J u r o r no. 47, t h e S t a t e 14 explained: r e a s o n s we s t r u c k J u r o r Number

CR-05-2371 " J u d g e , our n e x t one w o u l d be J u r o r Number 47. And t h e f i r s t t h i n g we n o t e d was a g a i n i n t h e a r e a p r o f e s s i o n a l or s o c i a l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , t h a t this l a d y was a c a f e t e r i a manager, t h a t h e r h u s b a n d was a s e c u r i t y guard, that she had answered some q u e s t i o n s , and I'm n o t t r y i n g t o l e a d t h e C o u r t t o b e l i e v e s h e ' s t h e o n l y one who messed up these a n s w e r s , b e c a u s e t h e r e were a number o f p e o p l e on t h e p a n e l , and some t h a t r e m a i n e d on t h e j u r y t h a t , too, had trouble with some q u e s t i o n s such as Q u e s t i o n Number 50, i f t h e b u r d e n s h o u l d be b e y o n d a l l d o u b t f o r t h e S t a t e and she s a i d y e s . That the d e f e n d a n t - - i n Q u e s t i o n 58, t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o t e s t i f y . "And t h e n we g o t t o t h e a r e a o f m e d i a e x p o s u r e and she was--she was in--we noted in her q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t she s a i d she n e v e r w a t c h e d TV. And t h e n i n t h e g e n e r a l v o i r d i r e she had s a i d t h a t she had s e e n some m e d i a e x p o s u r e o f t h i s c a s e . And t h e n we f u r t h e r v o i r d i r e d h e r i n i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e , and I made a n o t e on my s e a t i n g c h a r t t h a t as a r e s u l t o f t h a t she s a i d she c o u l d be f a i r , b u t as a r e s u l t o f t h a t q u e s t i o n i n g , I d o n ' t know i f i t was specifically that question, but I detected a h o s t i l i t y on h e r p a r t j u s t i n g e n e r a l . D i d n ' t know i f she w a n t e d t o be h e r e . "But b e t w e e n t h a t , t h a t I n o t e d a b o u t h e r , t h e f a c t t h a t h e r s o p h i s t i c a t i o n l e v e l was somewhat s u s p e c t i n o u r o p i n i o n and we had u n c o v e r e d she had a l s o had an i s s u i n g a w o r t h l e s s c h e c k , i t was for t h o s e r e a s o n s , J u d g e , t h a t we s t r u c k J u r o r Number 47." (RTR, R. 19-20.)

F i n a l l y , r e g a r d i n g J u r o r no. 74, t h e S t a t e p r o v i d e d : " J u d g e , t h e n e x t one w o u l d be J u r o r 74. In r e v i e w i n g h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e we n o t e d a t Q u e s t i o n 20 that she had had previous jury service, one 15

CR-05-2371 involving a capital murder charge where t h e defendant received a sentence of l i f e without parole. T h a t was o f some i n t e r e s t t o us a n d we were n o t - - o b v i o u s l y we were s e e k i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i n t h i s c a s e , we were n o t l o o k i n g f o r any e x p e r t j u r o r s or seasoned j u r o r s i n t h i s case. " I n f a c t , when y o u l o o k a t t h e t w e l v e that r e m a i n e d on t h e j u r y o n l y one j u r o r h a d e v e r s e r v e d on a j u r y a n d i t was 45 [ s i c ] y e a r s b e f o r e this c a s e , r o u g h l y , b a c k i n t h e '70s a c c o r d i n g t o h i m . "We a l s o n o t i c e d h e r e on J u r o r Number 74 t h a t her occupation was a s e c r e t a r y . That i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e on Q u e s t i o n Number 67 i t s a y s , 'Do you agree t h a t t h e i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g c a p i t a l murder i s o n l y a f o r m a l c h a r g e a n d h a s n o t h i n g t o do w i t h g u i l t or innocence?' She s a y s , 'No.' "Question 74 we n o t e d t h a t she d i d n ' t - - s h e d i d n ' t e x p l a i n h e r answer. We a l s o n o t e d t h a t h e r son i n Q u e s t i o n 23 was t h e v i c t i m o f two r o b b e r i e s , b o t h b e i n g o b v i o u s l y a v i o l e n t c r i m e , a n d t h a t no a r r e s t o r c o n v i c t i o n s were h a d i n t h a t c a s e . "And, Judge, i t ' s f o r those s t r u c k J u r o r Number 74." (RTR, R. 21-22.) During the Batson hearing, the t r i a l the State's strike of Juror c o u r t i n q u i r e d about reasons that we

no. 38 b a s e d on h e r employment knew t h a t J u r o r

h i s t o r y , s p e c i f i c a l l y asking i fthe prosecutor no. know 38 was r e t i r e d - - t h e p r o s e c u t o r that Juror no. 38 was

i n d i c a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t A d d i t i o n a l l y , the r e a s o n he

retired.

prosecutor

explained

the " l a c k - o f - s o p h i s t i c a t i o n "

16

CR-05-2371 had given for s t r i k i n g several African-Americans as follows:

"[W]ith respect to professional or social s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , Judge, I w i l l note f o r the C o u r t t h a t when you do l o o k a t t h e j u r o r s who r e m a i n e d on t h i s c a s e , t h e C o u r t w i l l f i n d t h a t t h e y were a l l p r o f e s s i o n a l s o r o f management l e v e l , with the e x c e p t i o n o f one l a d y who was a housewife but m a r r i e d t o a guy who w o r k e d a t D u n l o p T i r e who had a p p e a r e d i n c o u r t as an e x p e r t w i t n e s s . And t h i s l a d y a l s o had two c h i l d r e n who were b o t h e d u c a t e d . "And i t was t h e S t a t e ' s i n t e n t , as I s a i d e a r l i e r , t h a t w i t h the l e v e l of t e c h n i c a l j u r y t h a t t h i s - - o r t e c h n i c a l e v i d e n c e t h a t t h i s j u r y was g o i n g t o have t o c o n f r o n t t h a t t h a t was one o f t h e m a i n concerns of the S t a t e i n t h i s case, t o , i n f a c t , get a j u r y t h a t c o u l d comprehend DNA e v i d e n c e . As t h e C o u r t remembers t h e d e f e n s e p u t up a DNA e x p e r t i n t h i s case. And t h e d e f e n s e had a c t u a l l y s e n t t h e DNA e v i d e n c e t o two o t h e r i n d e p e n d e n t l a b s , so we were n o t s u r e e x a c t l y what may be c o n f r o n t i n g u s . O b v i o u s l y we had DNA t e s t i m o n y f r o m R o d g e r M o r r i s o n at [the Department of F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s ] . " (RTR, R. 20-21.) the hearing, the trial court entered the

Following following

order:

" T h i s m a t t e r h a v i n g come b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on remand f r o m t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , t h i s c o u r t h a v i n g been d i r e c t e d t o conduct a h e a r i n g to determine i f the S t a t e i m p r o p e r l y used i t s peremptory j u r y challenges a g a i n s t African-American v e n i r e members i n a manner s u c h as t o v i o l a t e B a t s o n v. K e n t u c k y , 476 US 79 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , t h e C o u r t h a v i n g c o n d u c t e d s u c h a h e a r i n g on A p r i l 27, 2010, the c o u r t having c o n s i d e r e d the reasons o f f e r e d by M a d i s o n C o u n t y D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ... as t o t h e use of the S t a t e ' s peremptory c h a l l e n g e s , the c o u r t 17

CR-05-2371 h a v i n g reviewed t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e v o i r d i r e and the j u r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the c o u r t having f u r t h e r reviewed the Defendant's R e b u t t a l t o Prosecutor's R e a s o n s f o r S t r i k i n g B l a c k J u r o r s , t h e c o u r t makes the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law: " J u r o r No. 55 "The State o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g reasons f o r h a v i n g u s e d a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e t o remove t h i s juror: "1. This prospective death penalty. j u r o r was o p p o s e d t o t h e

"2. This prospective j u r o r was a social s e r v i c e s case worker. This prospective j u r o r d e a l t w i t h v i c t i m s ' abuse a n d was a w i t n e s s i n many c a s e s . "3. This prospective defendant's counsel. "4. judge. This prospective juror juror knew knew one o f t h e the trial

"5. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s s o n was t h e v i c t i m o f an a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r f o r w h i c h t h e r e h a d n e v e r been a p r o s e c u t i o n . "The c o u r t has e x a m i n e d t h e r e c o r d a n d n o t e d t h a t J u r o r No. 55 s t a t e d t h a t she ' w o u l d n ' t want t o i m p o s e ' t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y b u t t h a t she t h o u g h t she could 'go along with i t ' under certain circumstances. (R. 292.) W h i l e t h i s j u r o r d i d n o t i n i t i a l l y i n d i c a t e t h a t s h e was a c q u a i n t e d with d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ... o r t h e u n d e r s i g n e d j u d g e , she l a t e r admitted t o these a s s o c i a t i o n s i n response t o direct questioning. (R. 80; 29; 293.) The r e c o r d a l s o supports the S t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h e r son had been the v i c t i m o f an a t t e m p t e d murder. M o r e o v e r , as a [ D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] 18

CR-05-2371 s o c i a l worker, t h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r acknowledged t h a t she has 'seen a l o t ' o f abuse o v e r t h e y e a r s . (R. 139.) "Alabama c o u r t s have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t a juror's mixed feelings or reservations about imposing the death p e n a l t y i n a c a p i t a l case i s a v a l i d r a c e - n e u t r a l reason to e x e r c i s e a peremptory challenge. A c k l i n v. S t a t e , 790 So. 2d 975 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t s have u p h e l d c h a l l e n g e s i n c a s e s where a j u r o r was s t r u c k b e c a u s e he o r she had a f a m i l y member who was the v i c t i m of a v i o l e n t crime. Given the t o t a l i t y of the c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e a s o n s o f f e r e d by the S t a t e w i t h r e g a r d to t h i s j u r o r are n e u t r a l , non-race-related reasons. " J u r o r No. 37 o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g peremptory challenge opposed t o the

"The S t a t e ' s p r o s e c u t i o n reasons f o r having used a against this juror: "1. This prospective death penalty.

j u r o r was

"2. This p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r d i d not v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

answer

"3. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r i s a c u s t o d i a n and t h e r e f o r e may n o t be s u f f i c i e n t l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d t o s e r v e on t h i s j u r y . "Upon r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d and b a s e d on t h i s C o u r t ' s p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s , P r o s p e c t i v e J u r o r No. 37 e x p r e s s e d s t r o n g r e s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t h i s a b i l i t y t o impose the d e a t h p e n a l t y . In f a c t , t h i s j u r o r was a r g u a b l y one o f t h e most i m p a s s i o n e d p e r s o n s r e g a r d i n g h i s v i e w s , s t a t i n g t h a t he 'would n o t be a b l e t o l i v e w i t h h i m s e l f i f [he] had s o m e t h i n g t o so w i t h someone g o i n g t o t h e e l e c t r i c c h a i r ' (R. 287.) G i v e n t h e c o l l o q u y w h i c h t o o k p l a c e and 19

CR-05-2371 t h i s j u r o r ' s o b v i o u s l y mixed f e e l i n g s at having to s e r v e as a j u r o r i n t h i s c a s e , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e r e a s o n p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e was a valid r a c e - n e u t r a l reason. A c k l i n v. S t a t e , 790 So. 2d 975 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . "The c o u r t has r e v i e w e d t h e j u r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e and a g r e e s w i t h t h e S t a t e t h a t t h i s j u r o r f a i l e d t o respond to s e v e r a l of the q u e s t i o n s asked. These questions involved issues regarding weighty c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s . A l a b a m a c o u r t s have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t a l a c k o f r e s p o n s e i s a v a l i d r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r s t r i k i n g a v e n i r e member. H o c k e r v. S t a t e , 840 So. 2d 197 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . The c o u r t f i n d s t h e p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n t o s e r v e as a f u r t h e r r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n i n t h i s c a s e . "The court finds insufficient evidence was p r e s e n t e d t o show t h a t t h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r was t o o u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d t o s e r v e as a j u r o r i n t h i s case. A l t h o u g h he f a i l e d t o r e s p o n d t o q u e s t i o n s asked in the questionnaire, no evidence was p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h i s o m i s s i o n was a p r o d u c t o f h i s inability to comprehend the questions posed. M o r e o v e r , h i s o c c u p a t i o n as a c u s t o d i a n , standing alone, i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i s h h i s l a c k of sophistication. "However, g i v e n t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s was n o t t h e s o l e r e a s o n upon w h i c h t h e S t a t e e x e r c i s e d i t s p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e use of the peremptory c h a l l e n g e w i t h r e g a r d to t h i s j u r o r n o t t o be r a c i a l l y m o t i v a t e d . " J u r o r No. 65 o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g peremptory challenge the

"The S t a t e ' s p r o s e c u t i o n reasons f o r having used a against this juror:

"1. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s o p i n i o n about death penalty. 20

CR-05-2371 "2. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s f a m i l y o b l i g a t i o n s i n t e r f e r e d with h i s a b i l i t y to serve. "The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h i s j u r o r wrote 'vengeance i s mine s a y e t h t h e L o r d ' i n r e s p o n s e t o a q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g the death p e n a l t y . He s t a t e d t h a t he c o u l d c o n c e i v e o f no c i r c u m s t a n c e under w h i c h he c o u l d i m p o s e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y and t h e n equivocated and s t a t e d '[M]aybe s i r . I'm not a hundred percent.' (R. 226.) "Based on the responses given by this p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r and t h e c o u r t ' s o b s e r v a t i o n , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e r e a s o n g i v e n by t h e S t a t e f o r t h e use o f t h i s p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e t o be a v a l i d , r a c e - n e u t r a l reason. A c k l i n v. S t a t e , 790 So. 2d 975. "Of l e s s e r s i g n i f i c a n c e was t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s j u r o r i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had a potential family conflict. Such a r e a s o n has b e e n h e l d t o be a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason. Brown v. S t a t e , 623 So. 2d 416 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . "The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t i n t h i s c a s e , t h e use o f t h e p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e a g a i n s t t h i s j u r o r was not race-motivated. " J u r o r No. 39 o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g peremptory challenge

"The S t a t e ' s p r o s e c u t i o n reasons f o r having used a against this juror:

"1. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r was a S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t and t h i s t r i a l was p o t e n t i a l l y scheduled t o t a k e p l a c e on a S a t u r d a y . "2. "3. This prospective This j u r o r was juror unemployed. has a relative

prospective 21

CR-05-2371 involved i n prison ministries.

"4. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s q u e s t i o n n a i r e was incomplete. "5. This prospective c o u l d n o t be f a i r . j u r o r i n d i c a t e d t h a t he

" T h i s j u r o r i n d i c a t e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t engage i n any a c t i v i t i e s o t h e r t h a n r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s on Saturdays because of h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f . (R. 209). As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , o u t s i d e o b l i g a t i o n s o f a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r , e s p e c i a l l y one o f a r e l i g i o u s nature, are a s u f f i c i e n t l y n e u t r a l non-race-related r e a s o n t o u s e a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e . B r o w n [ , ] 623 So. 2d a t 416. S i m i l a r l y , r e l i g i o u s - b a s e d s t r i k e s have a l s o b e e n deemed t o be r a c e - n e u t r a l , H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 2 So. 39 880 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) . The court f i n d s that s u f f i c i e n t evidence e x i s t e d to support t h e use of a peremptory c h a l l e n g e with regard to t h i s juror. "The fact that this j u r o r was u n e m p l o y e d , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , may n o t c o n s t i t u t e a s u f f i c i e n t reason f o r s t r i k i n g t h i s j u r o r . However, g i v e n t h e v a l i d i t y of the other s t a t e d reasons, the court f i n d s no r a c i a l l y m o t i v a t e d animus i n t h e u s e o f t h i s peremptory challenge. " J u r o r No. 52 "The State o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g reasons f o r having used a peremptory challenge a g a i n s t this juror: "1. Keeper. This prospective juror juror was was a Sabbath to was

"2. This prospective become a m i n i s t e r . "3. This prospective 22

studying brother

juror's

CR-05-2371 m u r d e r e d and p r i o r t o h i s m u r d e r , he had c r i m i n a l conduct. "4. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r had m u r d e r and was 'too c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e engaged i n witnessed process.' a

"5. This j u r o r lacked s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n o f t h e t e c h n i c a l e v i d e n c e t o be p r e s e n t e d .

light

" J u r o r No. 52 a s k e d t o s p e a k t o t h e c o u r t and counsel p r i v a t e l y . She r e v e a l e d t h a t she had b e e n v i c t i m o f an ' a l m o s t r a p e . ' (R. 211-212.) She w i t n e s s e d a m u r d e r . (R. 212.) Her b r o t h e r had a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y and was m u r d e r e d . No one was e v e r p r o s e c u t e d f o r t h a t c r i m e . (R. 212-213.) "The f a c t t h a t a j u r o r or a j u r o r ' s f a m i l y member was t h e v i c t i m o f a c r i m e i s a s u f f i c i e n t r a c e - n e u t r a l reason. T i n k e r v. S t a t e , 932 So. 2d 168 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . " T h i s j u r o r ' s r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n was also c i t e d as a r e a s o n f o r t h e use o f a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e and t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h i s r e a s o n t o be race-neutral. "The s t a t e d r e a s o n s t h a t t h i s j u r o r ' s work h i s t o r y was n o t c o n d u c i v e t o s e r v i n g as a j u r o r i n this case i s not supported by the information conveyed at t r i a l . Nonetheless, the t o t a l i t y of the reasons g i v e n supports the f i n d i n g t h a t the S t a t e d i d not i m p r o p e r l y s t r i k e t h i s j u r o r . " J u r o r No. 27

"The S t a t e p r o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s f o r having used a peremptory challenge a g a i n s t this juror: " 1 . T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s employment h i s t o r y i n d i c a t e d a l a c k of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n .

23

CR-05-2371 "2. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r h a d b e e n c h a r g e d and c o n v i c t e d of drug possession. "3. The D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y h a d a b e l i e f t h a t he may have s e r v e d as t h e p r o s e c u t o r on h e r c a s e . "A s t r i k e b a s e d on i n f o r m a t i o n on a p r o s p e c t i v e juror's c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y has b e e n h e l d t o be race-neutral. Ex p a r t e Brown, 686 So. 2d 409 ( A l a . 1996) . In t h i s case, the D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y a l s o n o t e d t h a t he l i k e l y s e r v e d as t h e p r o s e c u t o r on t h e case but t h i s j u r o r never indicated that she r e c o g n i z e d h i m . These r e a s o n s s u p p o r t e d h e r r e m o v a l as a j u r o r . "The D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s j u r o r was n o t s o p h i s t i c a t e d . B a s e d on t h e c o u r t ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s and t h e r e s p o n s e s g i v e n on t h i s c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f i n d s t h i s t o be a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason. " J u r o r No. 11

"The S t a t e o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s f o r having used a peremptory challenge against this juror: "1. T h i s Adventist. and prospective j u r o r was a Seventh Day

"2. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s c u r r e n t work s t a t u s p r e v i o u s employment. insufficient check

"3. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r p r o v i d e d responses t o the questions asked.

"4. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r has a w o r t h l e s s conviction.

"As s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y i n t h i s o r d e r , a j u r o r ' s criminal conviction, religious affiliation, and e v a s i v e n e s s a r e a l l r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons f o r t h e use 24

CR-05-2371 of a peremptory strike. Moreover, this juror i n d i c a t e d t h a t she h a d n o t b e e n e m p l o y e d i n t e n years. W h i l e h e r c u r r e n t unemployment, s t a n d i n g a l o n e , may n o t have b e e n a s u f f i c i e n t l y r a c e - n e u t r a l reason, when compiled with the other factors e n u n c i a t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y , the reasons s t a t e d were s u f f i c i e n t . " J u r o r No. 64 "At the hearing i n this case, the State i n d i c a t e d t h a t J u r o r No. 64 was s t r u c k b e c a u s e : "1. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s e r v e d on t h r e e j u r i e s i n s i x y e a r s a n d i n a t l e a s t one o f t h o s e c a s e s , t h e j u r y r e a c h e d a 'not g u i l t y ' v e r d i c t . "2. This p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r appeared arrogant and vocal, g i v i n g the appearance of being a 'professional juror.' "3. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r was a n u r s e , t h e same p r o f e s s i o n as t h e v i c t i m i n t h i s c a s e a n d a k e y witness. "4. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r made a q u e s t i o n a b l e n o t a t i o n i n h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e answer. "The f a c t t h a t a j u r o r h a s s e r v e d on a p r i o r c a s e i n w h i c h a 'hung j u r y ' r e s u l t e d h a s b e e n h e l d t o be a r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n . T r a w i c k v . S t a t e , 698 So. 2d 151 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . Moreover, t h i s c o u r t h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e t h e demeanor o f this juror. The f a c t t h a t t h e j u r o r was e m p l o y e d as a n u r s e a n d t h a t t h e S t a t e was c o n c e r n e d t h a t she may be c r i t i c a l o f s t e p s t a k e n b y o t h e r h e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r s i n c o l l e c t i n g evidence i n t h i s case a l s o apparently f a c t o r e d i n t o the State's d e c i s i o n t o strike this juror. These stated reasons were race-neutral. " J u r o r No. 38 25

CR-05-2371 "The r e a s o n s c i t e d f o r t h e u s e o f a p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e t o remove t h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r f r o m t h e jury venire include: "1. history. This prospective prospective juror's juror's employment lack of

"2. This sophistication. "3. "4.

This prospective j u r o r ' s lack of responses. This prospective juror's inattentiveness.

"This c o u r t had the a b i l i t y t o observe t h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s demeanor a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the voir d i r e process. B a s e d on t h i s court's recollection, the State's p r o f f e r e d reason f o r striking this juror f o r ' i n a t t e n t i v e n e s s ' was justified. See Woods v. S t a t e , 724 So. 2d 40 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e f a c t t h a t she f a i l e d t o c o m p l e t e h e r j u r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r s t r i k i n g t h i s j u r o r . "With regard t o the S t a t e ' s c l a i m t h a t t h i s juror lacked s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n f i l l i n g out her questionnaire, t h i s court finds that the fact that she m i s s p e l l e d a w o r d does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e a l a c k o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . However, when c o u p l e d w i t h h e r employment h i s t o r y a n d h e r demeanor, t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e use o f peremptory s t r i k e by t h e S t a t e was r a c e - n e u t r a l . " J u r o r No. 47 "The r e a s o n s g i v e n b y t h e S t a t e f o r t h e u s e o f i t s peremptory challenge w i t h regard t o t h i s j u r o r include: "1. This sophistication. prospective juror's lack of

26

CR-05-2371 "2. veracity. "3. hostility. Concerns This about this prospective juror's juror's of

prospective

display

"4. This prospective j u r o r ' s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y for i s s u i n g worthless checks. "A p e r c e i v e d lack of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r when f a c e d w i t h t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t e v i d e n c e i n a c a s e has b e e n h e l d t o c o n s t i t u t e a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r the use of a peremptory challenge. T.K.S. v. S t a t e , 673 So. 2d 429 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) . The c o u r t h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e t h i s j u r o r a n d h e r demeanor. The c o u r t f i n d s that the D i s t r i c t Attorney's s t a t e d reason f o r s t r i k i n g t h i s j u r o r b a s e d on h e r p e r c e p t i o n t h a t she was h o s t i l e i s a v a l i d , r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n . See Brown v. S t a t e , 623 So. 2d 416 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993). F i n a l l y , as n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y i n t h i s o r d e r , the f a c t t h a t t h i s j u r o r had a c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n a l s o j u s t i f i e d t h e S t a t e ' s use of a peremptory challenge. " J u r o r No. 74 "The S t a t e c o n t e n d e d t h a t i t u s e d a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e t o remove t h i s v e n i r e m e m b e r b e c a u s e o f t h e following: "1. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s e r v e d on a p r i o r case i n v o l v i n g c a p i t a l murder and t h e Defendant received a l i f e sentence. "2. T h i s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s s o n was t h e v i c t i m o f two r o b b e r i e s . "3. This secretary. prospective j u r o r was e m p l o y e d as a

27

CR-05-2371 "4. The S t a t e questioned the prospective juror's response t o t h e one o f t h e questions contained i n the questionnaire. "As s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y i n t h i s o r d e r , t h e f a c t t h a t a j u r o r s e r v e d on a p r i o r j u r y w h i c h r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t w h i c h was l e s s t h a n f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i s a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason. Such i s t h e case here. Moreover, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e j u r o r ' s son was t h e v i c t i m o f two v i o l e n t c r i m e s a l s o j u s t i f i e d the S t a t e ' s removal o f t h i s j u r o r from t h e j u r y . "The f a c t t h a t t h i s j u r o r i s e m p l o y e d as a s e c r e t a r y i s not c l e a r l y a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason but b a s e d upon t h e o t h e r a r t i c u l a t e d r e a s o n s , t h i s j u r o r was n o t s t r u c k f o r any i m p r o p e r r e a s o n .

"Conclusion "The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t as s e t f o r t h i n t h i s Order, the State demonstrated v a l i d , race-neutral reasons f o r t h e use o f i t s peremptory challenges w i t h regard t o the j u r y v e n i r e i n t h i s case. Those r e a s o n s w h i c h t h e c o u r t f o u n d t o be v a l i d were n o t a f u n c t i o n o f p r e t e x t o r sham a n d t h i s C o u r t f u r t h e r f i n d s t h a t no f u r t h e r r e l i e f i s due t o be a f f o r d e d to t h e Defendant i n t h i s case." (RTR, R. 104-11.) Evaluation of a Batson claim involves the f o l l o w i n g three steps: " ' F i r s t , a d e f e n d a n t must make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e h a s b e e n e x e r c i s e d on the b a s i s o f race. [ B a t s o n v. K e n t u c k y , ] 476 U.S. [79,] 96-97 [ ( 1 9 8 6 ) ] . Second, i f t h a t showing has b e e n made, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n must o f f e r a r a c e - n e u t r a l basis f o r s t r i k i n g the juror i n question. Id., at 28

CR-05-2371 97-98. T h i r d , i n l i g h t o f t h e p a r t i e s ' submissions, t h e t r i a l c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t has shown p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I d . , a t 98.'" McCray v. State, 88 So. 3d 1, 17 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2010) (2003)). that 3d

( q u o t i n g M i l l e r - E l v. C o c k r e l l , 537 U.S. I n Ex p a r t e Sharp,

322, 328-29

t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d

t h e r e c o r d r a i s e d an i n f e r e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . at . Thus, t h e f i r s t step of the Batson process--a

So.

prima

f a c i e case o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n - - h a s been e s t a b l i s h e d . Under t h e s e c o n d s t e p shifts to the p r o s e c u t i o n of the Batson process, the burden

to o f f e r a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r Ex p a r t e Branch, Bird,

striking 526 So.

the j u r o r or j u r o r s i n q u e s t i o n . 2d 609, 623 ( A l a . 1987). ( A l a . 1991). and See,

e.g.,

Ex p a r t e

594 So. 2d 676, 680 "a c l e a r , specific,

The p r o s e c u t i o n must p r o v i d e challenge

l e g i t i m a t e reason f o r the

w h i c h r e l a t e s t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e t o be t r i e d , and w h i c h i s nondiscriminatory." also Ex p a r t e Bird, Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d a t 623. 594 So. 2d a t 680. The See

reason f o r the of a s t r i k e of for the

strike, cause,

however, need not r i s e and the issue is

to the l e v e l facial

the

validity

prosecutor's

explanation.

Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d a t 623; ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010).

D o s t e r v. S t a t e , 72 So. 3d 50, 73

29

CR-05-2371 The t r i a l c o u r t h e r e h e l d t h a t t h e S t a t e met i t s b u r d e n of the Batson i n q u i r y to a r t i c u l a t e a

under the second stage

" f a c i a l l y n e u t r a l " reason f o r excluding p r o s p e c t i v e A f r i c a n American jurors. "'Within the context of Batson, a "race-neutral" explanation "means an e x p l a n a t i o n b a s e d on s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n the race of the j u r o r . A t t h i s step of the i n q u i r y , the issue i s the f a c i a l v a l i d i t y of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s e x p l a n a t i o n . Unless a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t i s inherent i n the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered w i l l be deemed race n e u t r a l . " H e r n a n d e z v. New Y o r k , 500 U.S. 352, 360, 111 S. C t . 1859, 1866, 114 L. E d . 2d 395 (1991). " I n e v a l u a t i n g t h e r a c e - n e u t r a l i t y o f an a t t o r n e y ' s e x p l a n a t i o n , a c o u r t must determine whether, assuming the p r o f f e r e d reasons f o r the peremptory challenges are true, the challenges v i o l a t e the Equal P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " I d . " [ E ] v a l u a t i o n of the prosecutor's s t a t e of m i n d b a s e d on demeanor a n d c r e d i b i l i t y l i e s 'peculiarly within [a] trial judge's province.'" H e r n a n d e z , 500 U.S. a t 365, 111 S. C t . a t 1869.' " A l l e n v. S t a t e , 659 So. 2d 135, 147 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . See a l s o R o g e r s , 819 So. 2d a t 649. '"The t r i a l c o u r t i s i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n than the a p p e l l a t e court t o d i s t i n g u i s h bona f i d e r e a s o n s f r o m sham e x c u s e s . " ' H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 2 So. 3d 880, 899 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) ( q u o t i n g H e a r d v. S t a t e , 584 So. 2d 556, 561 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ) . Thus, ' " ' [ o ] n a p p e a l , t h e t r i a l court's ruling on the question whether the responding party offered legitimate race-neutral r e a s o n s w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d u n l e s s i t i s c l e a r l y 30

CR-05-2371 erroneous.'"' H a r r i s , 2 So. 3d a t 899 ( q u o t i n g H a r r i s o n v. S t a t e , 879 So. 2d 594, 607 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e B r o o k s , 695 So. 2d [184] a t 190 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ] ) ) . '"'A f i n d i n g i s " c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s " when a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t i t , t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t on t h e e n t i r e evidence i s left with the d e f i n i t e and firm c o n v i c t i o n t h a t a m i s t a k e has been committed.'"' F l e t c h e r v. S t a t e , 703 So. 2d 432, 436 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g D a v i s v. S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 309, 312 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989) ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n P o w e l l v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 590, 594 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 548 So. 2d 605 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) ) .
"

"... I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t ' [ a ] s l o n g as one reason g i v e n by t h e p r o s e c u t o r f o r t h e s t r i k e o f a potential juror i s sufficiently race-neutral, a d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g any o t h e r r e a s o n g i v e n n e e d n o t be made.' J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 648 So. 2d 629, 632 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . See a l s o J a c k s o n v . S t a t e , 791 So. 2d 979, 1009 n.6 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ; Brown v. S t a t e , 705 So. 2d 871, 874 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; a n d Wood v. S t a t e , 715 So. 2d 812, 816 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 715 So. 2d 819 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . 'Where a p r o s e c u t o r g i v e s a r e a s o n w h i c h may be a p r e t e x t , ... b u t a l s o g i v e s v a l i d a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s for the s t r i k e , the r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons will s u p p o r t t h e s t r i k e . ' B a t t l e v. S t a t e , 574 So. 2d 943, 949 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . " Martin 2010). We a g r e e w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e provided facially race-neutral reasons for striking t h e 11 v. S t a t e , 62 So. 3d 1050, 1058-60 ( A l a . C r i m . App.

African-American

j u r o r s and t h a t

i ttherefore

satisfied i t s

31

CR-05-2371 b u r d e n u n d e r s t e p two Supreme C o u r t and race-neutral the of the Batson p r o c e s s . Both the Alabama as as

t h i s C o u r t have s p e c i f i c a l l y r e c o g n i z e d r e a s o n s a s s e r t e d by the State here, such

o p p o s i t i o n t o the death p e n a l t y ; the f a c t t h a t the j u r o r had b e e n t h e v i c t i m o f a c r i m e o r had

prospective had on

a r e l a t i v e who

b e e n t h e v i c t i m o f a c r i m e ; t h e f a i l u r e t o answer q u e s t i o n s a juror questionnaire; convictions; inattentiveness lack to of

r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s or p r a c t i c e s ; p r i o r mental acuity; service on evasiveness a p r i o r case f o r the or in

questioning;

w h i c h t h e outcome had b e e n l e s s t h a n f a v o r a b l e demeanor; b i a s ; and unemployment.


5

State;

S e e , e.g., W h a t l e y v. S t a t e , [ M s . CR-08-0696, Dec. 16, 2011] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d ) , and t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n ( m i x e d v i e w s on o r r e s e r v a t i o n s concerning c a p i t a l punishment, previous c r i m i n a l charges, p r o s e c u t i o n s or c o n v i c t i o n s of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r or f a m i l y member, a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h a t t o r n e y s i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e , demeanor, and employment a r e a l l v a l i d race-neutral r e a s o n s f o r p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e ) ; S t a n l e y v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-062236, A p r i l 29, 2011] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2011), and t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n ( p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y o r r e l a t i v e s who have p r i o r a r r e s t s o r c o n v i c t i o n s a r e v a l i d r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n s f o r p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s ) ; M a r t i n v. S t a t e , 62 So. 3d 1050, 1063 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) ("Failure t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s on a j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s a r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n f o r a p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e . " ) ; H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 2 So. 3d 880, 900 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) ( r e l i g i o u s - b a s e d r e a s o n s a r e race-neutral reasons f o r peremptory s t r i k e s ) ; J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 43 So. 3d 7, 12 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009) (the f a c t t h a t a prospective j u r o r " l a c k e d mental a c u i t y " or p r e v i o u s l y
5

32

CR-05-2371 In the t h i r d step of the process, evidence t h e d e f e n d a n t has t h e t h a t the reason or

opportunity to offer

indicating

e x p l a n a t i o n o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e f o r c h a l l e n g i n g t h e j u r o r i n question So. 2d i s m e r e l y a sham o r p r e t e x t . at 624. Throughout the Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , process, 526

Batson

"[t]he

defendant maintains proving intentional

at a l l times

... t h e u l t i m a t e b u r d e n o f United States v.

discrimination."

H o u s t o n , 456 F.3d 1328, 1335 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2006) 476 U.S. a t 94 n . 1 8 ) . In light of both parties' submissions,

(citing

Batson,

the t r i a l

court

must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s c a r r i e d h i s o r h e r burden Brooks, So. of showing p u r p o s e f u l 695 So. 2d 184, 190 discrimination. See Ex parte

( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526

2d a t 624.

See a l s o F l e t c h e r v. S t a t e , 703 So. 2d 432, ("When t h e d e f e n d a n t c h a l l e n g e s as explanations as t o a particular

435 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) pretextual the prosecutor's

v e n i r e p e r s o n , t h e i n q u i r y becomes f a c t u a l i n n a t u r e a n d moves to step three. At t h i s step the t r i a l c o u r t must r e s o l v e t h e

s e r v e d on a j u r y t h a t r e t u r n e d a n o t - g u i l t y v e r d i c t i s a r a c e n e u t r a l r e a s o n f o r a p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e ) ; a n d R o g e r s v. S t a t e , 819 So. 2d 643, 649-50 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n (the i n a t t e n t i v e n e s s or b i a s o f a veniremember i s a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r a s t r i k e ) . 33

CR-05-2371 factual dispute, and whether the prosecutor intended to

discriminate 500 395 must

i s a question

of fact.

H e r n a n d e z v. New

York,

U.S. 352, 364-65, 111 S. C t . 1859, 1868-69, 114 L. E d . 2d (1991)."). confront I n making t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e t r i a l the "decisive question" and evaluate court the

c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s e x p l a n a t i o n , H e r n a n d e z v. New Y o r k , 500 U.S. 352, 365 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , a bearing on i t , " M i l l e r - E l See a l s o M i l l e r - E l " i n l i g h t of a l l evidence with v. D r e t k e , 545 U.S. 2 3 1 , 252

(2005).

v. C o c k r e l l ,

537 U.S. a t 338-39;

B a t s o n , 476 U.S. a t 98. 1155 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2011) findings.

C f . G r e e n e v. U p t o n , 644 F.3d 1145, ("Batson does not require elaborate

factual

See M i l l e r - E l

v. C o c k r e l l ,

537 U.S. 322,

328-29, 123 S. C t . 1029, 1035, 154 L. E d . 2d 931 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; s e e also H i g h t o w e r v. T e r r y , 459 F.3d 1067, 1072 n.9 (11th C i r .

2006) ('We may t h e r e f o r e make " t h e common s e n s e j u d g m e n t " - - i n light of defense counsel's failure t o rebut the prosecutor's

e x p l a n a t i o n s and t h e t r i a l trial court implicitly

court's ultimate ruling--that the the prosecutor's completing race-neutral step three of explanation

found

e x p l a n a t i o n s t o be c r e d i b l e , t h e r e b y the Batson inquiry.')").

In addition, "'[t]he juror

offered

for striking

each b l a c k

must be e v a l u a t e d i n

34

CR-05-2371 l i g h t of the e x p l a n a t i o n s o f f e r e d f o r the p r o s e c u t o r ' s peremptory s t r i k e s , the prima (Ala. S.E.2d 1991) 792, facie and as w e l l , other

i n l i g h t of the s t r e n g t h of 594 So. 2d 676, 327, 683 357

case.'"

Ex p a r t e B i r d ,

( q u o t i n g Gamble v. 795 (1987)). be In

S t a t e , 257 other in

Ga.

325,

words,

a l l relevant whether Snyder a

circumstances

must

considered

determining See, ("[I]n e.g.,

p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n has v. L o u i s i a n a , 552 U.S. 472,

b e e n shown. 478 (2008)

reviewing

r u l i n g c l a i m e d t o be a B a t s o n that bear upon the issue

e r r o r , a l l of the of racial

circumstances must be

animosity

consulted."). "Under A l a b a m a law, the trial judge must ' e v a l u a t [ e ] t h e e v i d e n c e and e x p l a n a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d ' and 'determine whether the explanations are s u f f i c i e n t t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n of b i a s . ' B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d a t 624. 'The t r i a l j u d g e c a n n o t m e r e l y a c c e p t t h e s p e c i f i c r e a s o n s g i v e n ... a t f a c e v a l u e ; t h e j u d g e must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e f a c i a l l y neutral explanations are contrived to avoid a d m i t t i n g the a c t s of group d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . ' Id." Smith v. J a c k s o n , 770 So. 2d 1068, 1072-73 ( A l a . 2000).

The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e B r a n c h p r o v i d e d t h e following i l l u s t r a t i v e defendant could o f f e r for examples of the types of evidence stated the

to demonstrate t h a t the

reason

c h a l l e n g i n g t h e j u r o r i n q u e s t i o n i s a sham o r p r e t e x t :

35

CR-05-2371 " 1 . The r e a s o n s f a c t s of the case. given are not r e l a t e d to the

"2. T h e r e was a l a c k o f q u e s t i o n i n g t o t h e challenged j u r o r , or a l a c k of meaningful questions. "3. D i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t - - p e r s o n s w i t h t h e same o r s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as t h e c h a l l e n g e d j u r o r were n o t s t r u c k . "4. D i s p a r a t e e x a m i n a t i o n o f members o f t h e v e n i r e ; e.g., a q u e s t i o n d e s i g n e d t o provoke a c e r t a i n response t h a t i s l i k e l y t o d i s q u a l i f y the j u r o r was a s k e d t o b l a c k j u r o r s , b u t n o t t o w h i t e jurors. "5. The prosecutor, having 6 peremptory c h a l l e n g e s , u s e d 2 t o remove t h e o n l y 2 b l a c k s r e m a i n i n g on t h e v e n i r e . "6. 'An e x p l a n a t i o n b a s e d on a g r o u p b i a s where the group t r a i t i s n o t shown t o a p p l y t o t h e challenged juror s p e c i f i c a l l y . ' Slappy [v. S t a t e ] , 503 So. 2d [350] a t 355 [ ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ] . F o r i n s t a n c e , an a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t e a c h e r s as a class are too l i b e r a l , without any s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s h a v i n g been d i r e c t e d t o t h e p a n e l o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l j u r o r showing t h e p o t e n t i a l l y liberal nature of the challenged j u r o r . " Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d a t 624 ( c i t a t i o n s In reviewing the t r i a l we court's apply ultimate omitted). conclusion on

discriminatory standard State,

intent,

the

"clearly

erroneous"

of review.

Hernandez,

500 U.S.

a t 364; Y a n c e y v. See a l s o

813 So. 2d 1, 3

( A l a . Crim.

App. 2001) .

G r e e n e , 644 F.3d a t 1155. T h i s d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w

36

CR-05-2371 is a p p l i c a b l e because i n t e n t to d i s c r i m i n a t e i s a q u e s t i o n H e r n a n d e z , 500 the United the U.S. a t 366-67. Court of I n S n y d e r , 552 stated review the U.S. of at

fact. 477,

States

Supreme

following a

regarding trial

deferential

standard

a p p l i e d to

court's determination

regarding discriminatory intent:

"On a p p e a l , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on t h e i s s u e o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t must be s u s t a i n e d u n l e s s i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous. See H e r n a n d e z v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 369, 111 S. C t . 1859, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395, (1991) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) ; i d ^ , a t 372, 111 S. C t . 1859, (O'Connor, J . , j o i n e d by S c a l i a , J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n judgment). The t r i a l c o u r t has a p i v o t a l r o l e i n e v a l u a t i n g Batson claims. Step t h r e e o f t h e B a t s o n i n q u i r y i n v o l v e s an e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s c r e d i b i l i t y , see 476 U.S. a t 98, n. 21, 106 S. C t . 1712 and 'the b e s t e v i d e n c e [of d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t ] o f t e n w i l l be t h e demeanor o f the attorney who exercises the challenge,' Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365, 111 S. Ct. 1859 (plurality opinion). In a d d i t i o n , r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons f o r peremptory challenges o f t e n invoke a j u r o r ' s demeanor ( e . g . , n e r v o u s n e s s , i n a t t e n t i o n ) , making the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i r s t - h a n d o b s e r v a t i o n s of even g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e . In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , the trial c o u r t must e v a l u a t e n o t o n l y w h e t h e r the prosecutor's demeanor belies a discriminatory i n t e n t , b u t a l s o w h e t h e r t h e j u r o r ' s demeanor can c r e d i b l y be s a i d t o have e x h i b i t e d t h e b a s i s f o r t h e s t r i k e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e j u r o r by t h e p r o s e c u t o r . We have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s of c r e d i b i l i t y and demeanor l i e ' " p e c u l i a r l y w i t h i n a t r i a l judge's p r o v i n c e , " ' i b i d . (quoting Wainwright v. W i t t , 469 U.S. 412, 428, 105 S. C t . 844, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) , and we have s t a t e d t h a t ' i n t h e a b s e n c e o f e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we w o u l d d e f e r to [the t r i a l c o u r t ] . ' 500 U.S. a t 366, 111 S. C t . 1859." 37

CR-05-2371 552 U.S. a t 477. Similarly, t h i s C o u r t has stated:

"'When r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a B a t s o n motion, t h i s court gives deference to the trial c o u r t and w i l l r e v e r s e a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n o n l y if t h e r u l i n g i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . ' Y a n c e y v. S t a t e , 813 So. 2d 1, 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . 'A t r i a l court i s i n a f a r b e t t e r p o s i t i o n than a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t t o r u l e on i s s u e s o f c r e d i b i l i t y . [ ' ] Woods v. S t a t e , 789 So. 2d 896, 915 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999). ' G r e a t c o n f i d e n c e i s p l a c e d i n our trial judges i n the s e l e c t i o n of j u r i e s . Because they d e a l on a d a i l y b a s i s w i t h the attorneys in their respective counties, they are better able to determine whether d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p a t t e r n s e x i s t i n the s e l e c t i o n of j u r i e s . ' P a r k e r v. S t a t e , 571 So. 2d 381, 384 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . " ' D e f e r e n c e t o t r i a l c o u r t f i n d i n g s on t h e i s s u e o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t makes p a r t i c u l a r sense i n t h i s c o n t e x t because, as we n o t e d i n B a t s o n , t h e f i n d i n g w i l l " l a r g e l y t u r n on e v a l u a t i o n o f c r e d i b i l i t y " 476 U.S., a t 98, n.21. In the t y p i c a l c h a l l e n g e i n q u i r y , the d e c i s i v e q u e s t i o n will be whether counsel's race-neutral explanation f o r a peremptory challenge s h o u l d be b e l i e v e d . T h e r e w i l l s e l d o m be much e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g on t h a t i s s u e , and the best evidence often will be the demeanor o f t h e a t t o r n e y who e x e r c i s e s t h e challenge. As w i t h t h e s t a t e o f m i n d o f a j u r o r , e v a l u a t i o n of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t a t e o f m i n d b a s e d on demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y lie "peculiarly within a t r i a l judge's province." W a i n w r i g h t v. W i t t , 469 U.S. 412, 428, 105 S. C t . 844, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , c i t i n g P a t t o n v. Young, 467 U.S. 1025, 1038, 104 S. C t . 2885, 81 L. Ed. 2d 847 (1984).' " H e r n a n d e z v. New York, 500 38 U.S. 352, 365, 111 S.

CR-05-2371 Ct. Doster, v. 1859, 72 So. 114 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1991)." See also Bryant

3d a t 73-74 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . So. 2d 732, of the 740 ( A l a . C r i m . App.

S t a t e , 951 The third

2003). been f u r t h e r

step

B a t s o n a n a l y s i s has

explained: "The r e a s o n s s t a t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t o r p r o v i d e the only reasons on which the prosecutor's c r e d i b i l i t y i s t o be j u d g e d . United States v. H o u s t o n , 456 F.3d 1328, 1335 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . The c r e d i b i l i t y of the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s e x p l a n a t i o n i s to be evaluated considering the 'totality of the r e l e v a n t f a c t s , ' i n c l u d i n g w h e t h e r members o f a r a c e were d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y e x c l u d e d . H e r n a n d e z [v. New Y o r k ] , 500 U.S. [352] a t 363, 111 S. C t . a t 1868 [(1991)] ( q u o t a t i o n marks and c i t a t i o n omitted). Questions a r i s e r e g a r d i n g the c r e d i b i l i t y of the e x p l a n a t i o n and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e e x p l a n a t i o n i s p r e t e x t u a l (1) when t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a s t r i k e i s e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o j u r o r s of a d i f f e r e n t r a c e who have n o t b e e n s t r i c k e n , C a l d w e l l v. M a l o n e y , 159 F.3d 639, 651 ( 1 s t C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ; (2) upon a c o m p a r a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e j u r o r s s t r u c k and t h o s e who r e m a i n e d , T u r n e r v. M a r s h a l l , 121 F.3d 1248, 1251-52 (9th C i r . 1997), including the a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e w h i t e and b l a c k v e n i r e members, Houston, 456 F.3d at 1338; (3) or when the p r o s e c u t i o n f a i l s t o engage i n a m e a n i n g f u l v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n on a s u b j e c t t h a t i t a l l e g e s i t i s c o n c e r n e d , M i l l e r - E l [v. D r e t k e ] , 545 U.S. [231] a t 246, 125 S. C t . a t 2328 [ ( 2 0 0 5 ) ] . Evidence of purposeful d i s c r i m i n a t i o n may be shown through s i d e - b y - s i d e comparisons c o n f i r m i n g t h a t the reasons for s t r i k i n g a black p a n e l i s t a l s o apply to s i m i l a r n o n - b l a c k p a n e l i s t s who were p e r m i t t e d t o s e r v e . See i d . a t 241, 125 S. C t . a t 2325. A p r o s e c u t o r ' s reasonable explanation for o b j e c t i n g to a black p a n e l i s t b a s e d on h i s o r h e r o p i n i o n s o r comments 39

CR-05-2371 may be u n d e r c u t by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s f a i l u r e to object to other white p a n e l i s t s who expressed s i m i l a r v i e w s , and may be e v i d e n c e o f p r e t e x t . Id. a t 248, 125 S. C t . a t 2329-30. The prosecutor's f a i l u r e to s t r i k e s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d j u r o r s i s not pretextual, however, 'where t h e r e are relevant differences between the struck j u r o r s and the comparator j u r o r s . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. N o v a t o n , 271 F.3d 968, 1004 (11th C i r . 2001). The prosecutor's e x p l a n a t i o n 'does n o t demand an e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t i s p e r s u a s i v e , o r e v e n p l a u s i b l e ; so l o n g as t h e r e a s o n is not inherently discriminatory, i t suffices.' R i c e v. C o l l i n s , 546 U.S. 333, 338, 126 S. C t . 969, 973-74, 163 L. Ed. 2d 824 (2006) ( q u o t a t i o n marks and c i t a t i o n omitted). Neither a prosecutor's m i s t a k e n b e l i e f about a j u r o r nor f a i l u r e t o ask a v o i r d i r e q u e s t i o n p r o v i d e s ' c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g ' e v i d e n c e o f p r e t e x t . M c N a i r [v. C a m p b e l l ] , 416 F.3d [1291] a t 1311-12 [ ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ] . " Parker v. Allen, 565 See F.3d 1258, 1271 (11th Cir. 2009) F.3d "trial candor

(emphasis added). 1282, 1294

a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W a l k e r , 490

( 1 1 t h C i r . 2007) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t b e c a u s e t h e

j u d g e i s i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o e v a l u a t e an a t t o r n e y ' s and

f e r r e t o u t p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , " an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

w i l l d e f e r t o t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on g e n u i n e n e s s o f r e a s o n s e v e n when " t r o u b l e d by t h e w e a k n e s s o f r e c o r d e v i d e n c e " ) . e v a l u a t i o n of the c r e d i b i l i t y of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s The

explanation the

i n t h e t h i r d s t e p demands c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f

r e l e v a n t f a c t s , and we d e f e r t o a t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s as t o the "genuineness" of the prosecutor's proffered reason or

40

CR-05-2371 reasons. at 1294. "The o b j e c t i n g p a r t y may c a r r y i t s b u r d e n by s h o w i n g t h a t for F.3d the See, e.g., S n y d e r , 552 U.S. a t 477; W a l k e r , 490 F.3d

t h e s t r i k i n g p a r t y ' s r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n i s a mere p r e t e x t discrimination." 1303, 1312 (11th United States v. As Bernal-Benitez, noted above, one 594 way

C i r . 2010).

d e f e n d a n t may

demonstrate t h a t the o f f e r e d reason i s a p r e t e x t

i s t o show t h a t i t a p p l i e s w i t h e q u a l f o r c e t o v e n i r e m e m b e r s o f a n o t h e r r a c e who U.S. at 241. offered multiple reasons (Jurors In the were n o t s t r u c k . M i l l e r - E l v. D r e t k e , 545

H e r e , as n o t e d , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n in no. support of 55, 37, i t s strikes 39, 52, 27, of the 11,

jurors i n question 64, 38, 47, and 74).

65,

trial

c o u r t and the

i n his materials stated

t o t h i s C o u r t , Sharp reasons for striking S h a r p has or more

attacks those

many o f jurors. reasons

prosecution's

I n d e e d , f o r most o f t h o s e j u r o r s , arguably demonstrating that one

offered of the be

prosecution's v i e w e d as law,

s t a t e d reasons f o r s t r i k i n g that j u r o r could a pretext. Under o u r well settled

a sham o r

case

however, " ' [ a ] s l o n g as one r e a s o n g i v e n by t h e prosecutor f o r the s t r i k e of a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r i s s u f f i c i e n t l y 41

CR-05-2371 r a c e - n e u t r a l , a d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g any o t h e r r e a s o n g i v e n n e e d n o t be made,' [and] ' [ w ] h e r e a p r o s e c u t o r g i v e s a r e a s o n w h i c h may be a p r e t e x t , ... b u t a l s o g i v e s v a l i d a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s f o r t h e s t r i k e , the r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons w i l l support the strike.'" Martin, 62 So. 3d a t 1059-60 omitted)).
6

(emphasis added; c i t a t i o n s

and

quotation

S h a r p h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d , as t o any

The a n a l y s i s i n o u r o p i n i o n i n S h a r p I V was g r o u n d e d on t h i s w e l l s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e o f law and, i n f a c t , c i t e d M a r t i n f o r t h a t p r i n c i p l e . I n h i s most r e c e n t m a t e r i a l s s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t , S h a r p does n o t d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s M a r t i n o r t h e p r i n c i p l e s t a t e d t h e r e i n or the cases c i t e d i n M a r t i n t h a t s t a n d f o r t h a t p r i n c i p l e . Many o f h i s a r g u m e n t s , h o w e v e r , a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t s p e c i f i c p r i n c i p l e s t a t e d i n M a r t i n and f o r t h i s C o u r t t o a g r e e w i t h S h a r p w o u l d r e q u i r e us t o o v e r r u l e t h e numerous c a s e s c i t e d i n M a r t i n t h a t s t a n d f o r t h a t l e g a l p r i n c i p l e - - w h i c h S h a r p h a s n o t a s k e d us t o do. F o r example, Sharp argues: "Had t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d t h e c o r r e c t Batson a n a l y s i s by examining a l l o f t h e reasons g i v e n i n l i g h t o f a l l o f t h e r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s case and a p p l y i n g t h e c o n t r o l l i n g l e g a l p r i n c i p [ l e ] s , i t w o u l d have been c o m p e l l e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n s when e x e r c i s i n g h i s p e r e m p t o r y strikes." ( S h a r p ' s r e p l y b r i e f d a t e d December 17, 2012, pp. 18-19 (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) . )
6

In c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s reversed, the d i s s e n t i n g opinion states:

order

should

be

" [ I ] n making the d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r t h a t one s p e c i f i c r e a s o n p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e i s p r e t e x t u a l or non-pretextual ... a c o u r t i s required to consider a l l relevant circumstances, i n c l u d i n g the other reasons p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e f o r that p a r t i c u l a r s t r i k e and t h e reasons p r o f f e r e d by t h e State f o r i t s other s t r i k e s . Neither Martin nor the g e n e r a l r u l e as c i t e d i n M a r t i n s a y o t h e r w i s e . " 42

CR-05-2371

So. 3d a t (emphasis added). We f a i l t o see how the b e l i e f e x p r e s s e d i n t h e d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n t h a t a c o u r t must c o n s i d e r " t h e o t h e r r e a s o n s p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s t r i k e and t h e r e a s o n s p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e f o r i t s o t h e r s t r i k e s " i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the statement i n M a r t i n that " ' [ a ] s l o n g as one r e a s o n g i v e n by t h e prosecutor f o r the s t r i k e of a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r i s s u f f i c i e n t l y r a c e - n e u t r a l , a d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g any other r e a s o n g i v e n n e e d n o t be made,' [and] '[w]here a p r o s e c u t o r g i v e s a r e a s o n w h i c h may be a p r e t e x t , ... b u t a l s o g i v e s v a l i d a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s f o r t h e s t r i k e , the r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons w i l l support the strike." A l t h o u g h M a r t i n examined a l l the reasons o f f e r e d f o r s t r i k i n g t h e o n l y j u r o r a t i s s u e i n t h a t a p p e a l and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a l l those reasons "were race neutral and that none was pretextual," Martin, 62 So. 3d a t 1060, that additional a n a l y s i s occurs immediately f o l l o w i n g the "general rule" s t a t e d above and i s p r e f a c e d w i t h t h e p h r a s e " [ e ] v e n so," i n d i c a t i n g t h a t even though t h i s C o u r t p e r f o r m e d i t , the a n a l y s i s was n o t r e q u i r e d . Rather, that a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s a p p e a r s t o have b e e n done b e c a u s e i t s u p p o r t e d t h e u l t i m a t e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t no B a t s o n v i o l a t i o n had o c c u r r e d . Nowhere does M a r t i n s t a t e t h a t s u c h an a n a l y s i s o f e v e r y r e a s o n i s r e q u i r e d i n every case. I n t h i s r e g a r d , we n o t e t h a t t h i s Court f r e q u e n t l y performs a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of i s s u e s beyond t h e b a r e minimum n e c e s s a r y t o a f f i r m o r r e v e r s e a lower c o u r t ' s judgment. Such a p r a c t i c e s i m p l y makes g o o d s e n s e b e c a u s e i t p r o v i d e s a d d i t i o n a l b a s e s on w h i c h o u r d e c i s i o n s may be a f f i r m e d . As t o t h e d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n ' s suggestions that t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h McGahee v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f C o r r e c t i o n s , 560 F.3d 1252 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) , and that McGahee has d e c l a r e d t h e g e n e r a l r u l e s t a t e d i n M a r t i n t o be "'an u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w u n d e r B a t s o n , ' " t h o s e s u g g e s t i o n s a r e i n c o r r e c t . M c G a h e e - - w h i c h , as t h e d i s s e n t i n g 43

CR-05-2371 i n d i v i d u a l j u r o r i n q u e s t i o n , t h a t a l l the s t a t e d reasons f o r s t r i k i n g t h a t j u r o r were a sham o r a p r e t e x t . not demonstrated t h a t the p r o s e c u t i o n J u r o r s no. In the 38, 47, 37, and 74 Sharp challenged the prosecution's Thus, S h a r p Batson. has

violated

trial

court,

o p i n i o n n o t e s , i s n o t b i n d i n g on t h i s C o u r t - - d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h a b l a n k e t r u l e t h a t the g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e o u t l i n e d i n M a r t i n i s an u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w u n d e r B a t s o n . Moreover, McGahee i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h i s c a s e . The McGahee c o u r t e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n was an unreasonable a p p l i c a t i o n of Batson under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h a t c a s e , w h i c h i n c l u d e d , most n o t a b l y , two circumstances not p r e s e n t i n Sharp's case: the p r o s e c u t i o n i n McGahee had removed a l l t h e b l a c k v e n i r e m e m b e r s , and the p r o s e c u t i o n had s t a t e d as one o f i t s r e a s o n s f o r s t r i k i n g a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r ( J o n e s ) t h a t i t " d i d n o t want t o l e a v e him i n d i v i d u a l l y " - - w h i c h t h e E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t n o t e d c o u l d "be r e a d o n l y t o mean t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t want t o l e a v e J o n e s as t h e s o l e b l a c k j u r o r on t h e p a n e l . " 560 F.3d a t 1264-65. Thus, McGahee h e l d t h a t " [ t ] h e f a i l u r e by t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s t o c o n s i d e r t h e S t a t e ' s a r t i c u l a t i o n o f an e x p l i c i t l y racial reason f o r s t r i k i n g Jones [was] an unreasonable a p p l i c a t i o n of Batson." 560 F.3d a t 1264 (emphasis added). The E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d have c o n s i d e r e d , u n d e r t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s removal of " m u l t i p l e A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n j u r o r s because of t h e i r 'low i n t e l l i g e n c e ' when t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e o f t h e j u r o r s was u n s u p p o r t e d by any e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d . " 560 F.3d a t 1265. As o u r o p i n i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s , h o w e v e r , we have c o n s i d e r e d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s " l a c k - o f - s o p h i s t i c a t i o n " r e a s o n i n our r e v i e w of t h i s c a s e , b u t , u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we do n o t f i n d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t c l e a r l y e r r e d i n denying Batson r e l i e f based on t h e o t h e r r a c e - n e u t r a l r e a s o n o r r e a s o n s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f f e r e d f o r s t r i k i n g the j u r o r s i n q u e s t i o n . 44

CR-05-2371 striking J u r o r s no. 38, 47, 37, and out 74 for allegedly lacking that also but the State did to not lack

"sophistication." strike two

Sharp p o i n t e d jurors

Caucasian or

who

appeared who sat on

"sophistication" jury. The trial

"intelligence"

Sharp's on the no.

c o u r t , however, d i d not

rely

solely

" l a c k - o f - s o p h i s t i c a t i o n " r e a s o n i n i t s o r d e r as t o J u r o r s 38, 47, 37, and 74.


7

Rather,

as

Martin

permits,

the

trial

court

c i t e d other

r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons the 38, the 47, 37, and 74.

State offered for

striking

J u r o r s no.

Specifically, no. 38

prosecution

explained

(1)

that

Juror jury

a p p e a r e d i n a t t e n t i v e and
8

failed 47

to complete the

questionnaire; and had

(2) t h a t J u r o r no.

a p p e a r e d t o be (3) the that death Juror

hostile no. 37 and

a prior strong

criminal conviction; reservations about

expressed

penalty

O u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e two e m p a n e l e d C a u c a s i a n j u r o r s who S h a r p c l a i m s l a c k e d " s o p h i s t i c a t i o n " were n o t s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d t o J u r o r no. 47, who i s t h e o n l y j u r o r the t r i a l c o u r t even i n i t i a l l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t the " l a c k - o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n r e a s o n i n g " was t h e b a s i s f o r i t s f i n d i n g t h a t the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s peremptory s t r i k e of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r j u r o r was r a c e n e u t r a l .
7

S e v e r a l C a u c a s i a n members o f S h a r p ' s j u r y f a i l e d t o complete the j u r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . As t o J u r o r no. 38, h o w e v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a f i n d i n g t h a t , a f t e r o b s e r v i n g h e r d u r i n g t h e v o i r d i r e p r o c e s s , i t f o u n d h e r demeanor t o be the p r i m a r y r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r the s t r i k e .
8

45

CR-05-2371 f a i l e d to complete the j u r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e ; no. 74 had served on a prior j u r y t h a t had S t a t e and and (4) t h a t a Juror less-

returned a

than-favorable who had The the

v e r d i c t f o r the

a l s o had

relative

been the v i c t i m of a v i o l e n t c r i m e . trial c o u r t , w h i c h was of the i n the b e s t p o s i t i o n to judge entered findings in

demeanor

veniremembers,

a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n by t h e S t a t e . the 38's voir trial court i n d i c a t e d (1) t h a t i t had 38 was

Specifically, no. the 47's that death

observed Juror

demeanor and t h a t J u r o r no. d i r e process; (2) that

i n a t t e n t i v e during Juror 47; no. (3)

i t had

observed

demeanor i n a d i s p l a y o f h o s t i l i t y by J u r o r no. penalty; 37 had and (4) to the

J u r o r no.

indicated his inability that Juror no. 74 had

t o impose t h e returned a

verdict the was to not

unfavorable

State 74's

in a prior son had

case.

In a d d i t i o n ,

f a c t t h a t J u r o r no. also a v a l i d basis no.

been a v i c t i m of a c r i m e

f o r e x e r c i s i n g a peremptory challenge Accordingly, the trial court did

remove J u r o r

74.

c l e a r l y err i n i t s determination in 37, purposeful and 74. 27 and 11

t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t engage Jurors no. 38, 47,

discrimination in striking

J u r o r s no.

46

CR-05-2371 Sharp strikes the takes particular exception to the prosecution's says, lacked

of p o t e n t i a l Jurors struck these

no. 27 a n d 11 b e c a u s e , he jurors because they

State

"sophistication." struck

The S t a t e a l s o a s s e r t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t i t

J u r o r no. 27 b e c a u s e she h a d b e e n c h a r g e d i n M a d i s o n of marijuana counts; and had been

County w i t h s i x counts of p o s s e s s i o n c o n v i c t e d on a t l e a s t one o f t h o s e asserted that the d i s t r i c t had served

the State further Sharp's case

attorney prosecuting

e x c l u s i v e l y as a p r o s e c u t o r

of drug cases

during These

t h a t time and l i k e l y p r o s e c u t e d are v a l i d r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons. 2d 565, 586 ( A l a . Crim. App.

J u r o r no. 27's c a s e .

See Brown v . S t a t e , 982 So. 2006) (holding that the

prosecutor's three

reason f o r e x e r c i s i n g peremptory s t r i k e s veniremembers who had

against

African-American

criminal questioned

c o n v i c t i o n s a n d who e a c h h a d f a i l e d t o r e s p o n d when

as t o w h e t h e r t h e y h a d any p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s , was r a c e n e u t r a l f o r purposes of capital-murder defendant's Batson c h a l l e n g e ) ;

Gamble v. S t a t e , 791 So. 2d 409, 424-25 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) ( s t a t i n g t h a t the State's peremptory s t r i k e of a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r who h a d b e e n p r o s e c u t e d office numerous t i m e s b y t h e same d i s t r i c t attorney's and f o r

f o r w r i t i n g worthless

checks

47

CR-05-2371 possession See 102, of m a r i j u a n a d i d not r e s u l t i n a Batson v i o l a t i o n ) . v. State, 249 Ga. App. 354, 356, Batson 548 the S.E.2d State

also Carter 105 (2001)

(determining

that

under

o f f e r e d a r a c e - n e u t r a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r e x e r c i s i n g a peremptory s t r i k e a g a i n s t an A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n juror she failed had p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r where t h e c o n v i c t i o n f o r which district Parker, 565 attorney F.3d at

to d i s c l o s e a s h o p l i f t i n g prosecuted by the

been the

same Cf.

prosecuting 1271 nor

defendant's case). a prosecutor's a voir

("Neither failure

mistaken b e l i e f

about a j u r o r 'clear and

t o ask

dire question

provides

convincing'

evidence of p r e t e x t . " ) . 11, t h e S t a t e a s s e r t e d t h a t , " t h r o u g h i t s noted that Juror no. 11 had also been check,

As t o J u r o r no. records," i t had

c o n v i c t e d i n Madison County of n e g o t i a t i n g a w o r t h l e s s a crime of moral turpitude.


9

This

is a valid

race-neutral

C o n t r a r y t o the a s s e r t i o n of the d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n , our o p i n i o n does n o t "assume[] t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 a c t u a l l y had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . " So. 3d a t . Our a n a l y s i s p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e S t a t e a s s e r t e d t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s .
9

The d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n n o t e s t h a t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e S t a t e ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s and t h a t " t h e t r i a l c o u r t n e v e r made a f i n d i n g o f f a c t as t o w h e t h e r J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 a c t u a l l y had any p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . " So. 3d a t . 48

CR-05-2371

W h e t h e r J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 a c t u a l l y h a d p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s , however, i s n o t t h e q u e s t i o n t h e t r i a l c o u r t had t o d e c i d e i n the t h i r d step of t h e Batson a n a l y s i s . Rather, the " d e c i s i v e q u e s t i o n " f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t was t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t one o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 was t h e i r p r i o r c r i m i n a l h i s t o r i e s . See H e r n a n d e z , 500 U.S. a t 365; D r e t k e , 545 U.S. a t 252; C o c k r e l l , 537 U.S. a t 338-39. M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n h a d i n f a c t b e e n m i s t a k e n a b o u t i t s a s s e r t i o n t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 h a d p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s , t h a t w o u l d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t S h a r p met h i s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . As the U n i t e d S t a t e s Court of Appeals f o r t h e E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t has s t a t e d : " N e i t h e r a p r o s e c u t o r ' s m i s t a k e n b e l i e f about a j u r o r nor f a i l u r e t o ask a v o i r d i r e question provides ' c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g ' e v i d e n c e o f p r e t e x t . " P a r k e r , 565 F.3d a t 1271. See a l s o M c N a i r v. C a m p b e l l , 416 F.3d 1291, 1311 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 2005) ( " A l t h o u g h t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g [ t h e j u r o r ] was b a s e d on a b e l i e f t h a t u l t i m a t e l y p r o v e d i n c o r r e c t , t h i s does n o t e s t a b l i s h b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f f a c t was e r r o n e o u s , and M c N a i r p r e s e n t s no a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s contention."). The d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n a p p e a r s t o r e l y h e a v i l y on t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o respond i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o Sharp's " p o i n t [ i n g ] out i n h i s w r i t t e n response the l a c k of support i n t h e r e c o r d f o r t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 h a d prior convictions." So. 3d a t . Although the State d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 h a d a c t u a l c o n v i c t i o n s , i t d i d make s p e c i f i c a s s e r t i o n s t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 h a d s p e c i f i c p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . S h a r p ' s " p o i n t [ i n g ] o u t ... t h e l a c k o f s u p p o r t i n t h e r e c o r d " was an argument o f f e r e d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f the p r o s e c u t o r ' s e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t those j u r o r s had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s - - b u t S h a r p ' s argument i s n o t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 a c t u a l l y d i d n o t have p r i o r convictions. S h a r p , who h a d t h e " u l t i m a t e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , " Ex p a r t e B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d a t 624, h a d as much o p p o r t u n i t y as t h e S t a t e t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e on t h e f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 49

CR-05-2371 reason. 1999) See (having H a l l v. had office State, 816 So. 2d 80 (Ala. Crim. unit App. of a a

"contact"

with

the

bad-check reason

prosecutor's juror);

i s a race-neutral 629 So. 2d 33

for striking

S i l e r v. that

State, a

( A l a . C r i m . App. was the properly j u r o r had

1993) struck been So.

(providing

prospective

juror

pursuant to the

prosecutor's

belief

that

p r o s e c u t e d f o r p a s s i n g bad 2d 350 was ( A l a . C r i m . App.

checks);

C h i l d e r s v. S t a t e , 607

1992)

(concluding prosecutor

t h a t a veniremember s t a t e d t h a t he was

properly

s t r u c k where t h e

had

actual prior convictions.

F i n a l l y , i n support of the d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e s h o u l d have " a t l e a s t r e p l [ i e d ] t o S h a r p ' s a r g u m e n t , i f n o t t o [have] p r o v i d e [ d ] e v i d e n c e o f t h e a l l e g e d prior convictions," So. 3d a t , the d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n c i t e s Ex p a r t e Thomas, 601 So. 2d 56, 58 ( A l a . 1992) . The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e Thomas, h o w e v e r , e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e S t a t e i n t h a t c a s e had e x c l u s i v e a c c e s s t o the evidence that Thomas c o u l d have u s e d to evaluate the c r e d i b i l i t y of the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s s t a t e d reason f o r s t r i k i n g t h r e e o f t h e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s . The m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e us i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e do n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e S t a t e had exclusive a c c e s s t o r e c o r d s t h a t w o u l d have i n d i c a t e d w h e t h e r J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 had p r i o r c r i m i n a l r e c o r d s . Indeed, the S t a t e , i n i t s r e h e a r i n g a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t d a t e d A p r i l 15, 2011, a s s e r t e d t h a t r e c o r d s v e r i f y i n g t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 had p r i o r c r i m i n a l records are p u b l i c l y a v a i l a b l e f o r i n s p e c t i o n on a l a c o u r t . c o m , and t h e S t a t e p r o v i d e d instructions for f i n d i n g those records. Sharp, a l t h o u g h h a v i n g m u l t i p l e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o r e s p o n d t o t h e s e a s s e r t i o n s , has n o t d i s p u t e d the S t a t e ' s a s s e r t i o n i n t h a t regard. 50

CR-05-2371 c u r r e n t l y i n the process bad-check c a s e ) ; Bryant App. 1987) by (determining the prosecutor checks). i n the State's who had o f p r o s e c u t i n g the veniremember i n a v. S t a t e , 516 So. 2d 938 ( A l a . Crim. properly juror had

t h a t a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r was because the challenged

struck

w r i t t e n bad

S h a r p c l a i m s he showed d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t striking prior

o f J u r o r s no. 27 and 11, A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s

c o n v i c t i o n s and i n i t s f a i l u r e t o s t r i k e J u r o r no. 24, s a t on S h a r p ' s j u r y d e s p i t e he had previously been stating on h i s of

a C a u c a s i a n who questionnaire assault. We

that

convicted

disagree. to

T h i s C o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d t h a t f o r d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t e x i s t , t h e p e r s o n s b e i n g compared must be " o t h e r w i s e situated."

similarly In

Y a n c e y , 813 So. 2d a t 7 ( q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) .

t h i s c a s e , J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 were n o t s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d t o J u r o r no. 24. and As n o t e d , J u r o r no. 24, u n l i k e J u r o r s no. 27

11, d i s c l o s e d on h i s j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e

t h a t he h a d a i n Memphis,

prior

c o n v i c t i o n : an a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n i n 2000

Tennessee. their

J u r o r s no. 27 and 11, h o w e v e r , d i d n o t d i s c l o s e on t h a t they had p r i o r convictions. and Juror

juror questionnaires

J u r o r no. 27 s i m p l y

a n s w e r e d "no" t o t h e q u e s t i o n ,

51

CR-05-2371 no. 11 i n d i c a t e d o n l y t h a t h e r b r o t h e r had Our been c o n v i c t e d of

a crime.

caselaw r e c o g n i z e s the fundamental importance of See, e.g., Tomlin ("'It i s that

t r u t h f u l responses from p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . v. S t a t e , 695 fundamental So. to 2d 157, our 169

( A l a . C r i m . App. of impartial

1996)

system

justice

" ' [ p ] a r t i e s have a r i g h t t o have q u e s t i o n s a n s w e r e d t r u t h f u l l y by prospective jurors to enable them to exercise their

d i s c r e t i o n w i s e l y i n e x e r c i s i n g t h e i r peremptory ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v. Freeman, 605 App. 1373 232, fail So. 2d 1258, 1259

strikes.'"'" (Ala. Crim. So. 2d 1372, So. and 2d 11 had

1 9 9 2 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e O ' L e a r y , 438

( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e O ' L e a r y , 417 240 (Ala. 1982))). Not had only did Jurors no. 27

to d i s c l o s e that they i n Madison County),

prior

convictions

(which

occurred

they

a l s o f a i l e d t o i n d i c a t e on involvement

t h e i r j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t t h e y had p r e v i o u s

as c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s w i t h l a w e n f o r c e m e n t i n M a d i s o n C o u n t y . J u r o r no. 24, h o w e v e r , d i s c l o s e d on h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t h i s as

o n l y i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h law e n f o r c e m e n t i n M a d i s o n C o u n t y was

a c i t i z e n - - s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n h i s c a p a c i t y as manager o f a l o c a l department s t o r e . no. In l i g h t of the S t a t e ' s b e l i e f t h a t Jurors no.

27 and 11 had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s , t h e f a i l u r e o f J u r o r s

52

CR-05-2371 27 a n d 11 t o d i s c l o s e t h a t t h e y h a d p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s o r any them of a

involvement w i t h Madison County law enforcement renders not "similarly situated" to Juror analysis. that
1 0

no. 24 f o r p u r p o s e s

disparate-treatment Sharp also

claims

the State

failed

t o engage i n their

meaningful v o i r

dire with

Jurors

no. 27 a n d 11 a b o u t the State's i n some

prior undisclosed convictions. to engage i n meaningful that voir

Although dire may

failure be

cases

"evidence

the explanation

i s a sham a n d a p r e t e x t f o r

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , " Hemphill

v. S t a t e , 610 So. 2d 413, 416 ( A l a . court d i d not c l e a r l y e r r i n i t s here.

C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , t h e t r i a l

c o n c l u s i o n under the circumstances

The d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n s t a t e s t h a t "the S t a t e d i d not e v e n m e n t i o n t h e j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s when p r o v i d i n g t h i s r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11, much l e s s i n d i c a t e t h a t i t was s t r i k i n g J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 b e c a u s e t h e y h a d a l l e g e d l y n o t answered q u e s t i o n s t r u t h f u l l y . " So. 3d a t . Further, the d i s s e n t i n g opinion suggests t h a t , i n determining w h e t h e r J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 were s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d t o J u r o r no. 24, we a r e " ' i m a g i n [ i n g ] a r e a s o n ' " t o support the State's p o s i t i o n . So. 3d a t . As t o J u r o r no. 27, h o w e v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c i t e d h e r a p p a r e n t f a i l u r e t o answer a q u e s t i o n truthfully; the t r i a l c o u r t made t h e following specific f i n d i n g of fact: " I n t h i s case, the D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y a l s o n o t e d t h a t he l i k e l y s e r v e d as t h e p r o s e c u t o r on t h e c a s e b u t t h i s j u r o r n e v e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t she r e c o g n i z e d him" (emphasis added). As t o J u r o r no. 11, t h e trial court specifically found: "This prospective juror provided i n s u f f i c i e n t responses t o the questions asked."
10

53

CR-05-2371 Both the State during jury and t h e defense had j u r o r One purpose for questionnaires using from juror each oral

selection. i s to obtain

questionnaires potential voir dire

specific t o take

information

j u r o r without and w i t h o u t

having

days t o conduct

d u p l i c a t i o n of questions.

Once t h e

S t a t e d i s c o v e r e d t h a t a d i s c r e p a n c y e x i s t e d between t h e p u b l i c records o f c o n v i c t i o n a n d t h e sworn responses provided by

J u r o r s no. 27 and 11, i t w o u l d have b e e n a p p a r e n t t o t h e S t a t e t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 h a d n o t b e e n t r u t h f u l their juror questionnaires. For the State i n answering t o have then

questioned

J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 a b o u t t h o s e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s , they

w h i c h J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 h a d n o t d i s c l o s e d e v e n t h o u g h were m a t t e r s o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ,

l i k e l y w o u l d have e m b a r r a s s e d To

J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 i n f r o n t o f t h e o t h e r v e n i r e m e m b e r s .

so q u e s t i o n a n d e m b a r r a s s one member o f t h e v e n i r e i n f r o n t o f o t h e r members o f t h e v e n i r e w o u l d l i k e l y effect on the other jurors' freely have h a d a answering chilling dire

voir

questions. becoming

I t c o u l d e v e n have r e s u l t e d i n p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s embittered a fellow toward the prosecutor Thus, for having of the

embarrassed

veniremember.

because

S t a t e ' s knowledge o f t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s and t h e f a i l u r e o f

54

CR-05-2371 Jurors no. 27 and 11 to answer truthfully on the have

questionnaires, been As 584-85

v o i r d i r e on t h i s t o p i c l i k e l y w o u l d n o t
1 1

"meaningful." this

C o u r t n o t e d i n Brown v. 2006):

State,

982

So.

2d

565,

( A l a . C r i m . App.

"'"A connection w i t h or a founded suspicion of criminal activity can constitute a sufficiently race-neutral reason f o r the e x e r c i s e of a preemptory strike. S t e p h e n s v. S t a t e , 580 So. 2d 11 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , a f f ' d , 580 So. 2d 26 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; P o w e l l v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 590 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 548 So. 2d 605 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; L y n n v. S t a t e , 543 So. 2d 704 (Ala. Cr. App. 1 9 8 7 ) , a f f ' d , 543 So. 2d 709 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 493 U.S. 945, 110 S. C t . 351, 107 L. Ed. 2d 338 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . This connection w i t h or s u s p i c i o n of c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y i n c l u d e s t h e j u r o r i n q u e s t i o n , as w e l l as c l o s e r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s o f t h e j u r o r . S t e p h e n s ; A l l e n v. S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 1185 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ; L y n n . " '

The d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i s c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e c o u l d have q u e s t i o n e d J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 i n d i v i d u a l l y r e g a r d i n g the a l l e g e d d i s c r e p a n c y i n those j u r o r s ' responses t o t h e w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and t h e S t a t e ' s b e l i e f t h a t t h o s e j u r o r s had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . Under t h e circumstances h e r e , h o w e v e r , we do n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o q u e s t i o n J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 i n d i v i d u a l l y a b o u t w h e t h e r t h e y had b e e n u n t r u t h f u l i n t h e i r w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e s a b o u t p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s means t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e a r l y e r r e d i n i t s determination t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t engage i n p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o i t s s t r i k i n g o f J u r o r s no. 27 and 11.
11

55

CR-05-2371 " B a k e r v. S t a t e , 906 So. 2d 210, 255 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 906 So. 2d 277 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g H e a r d v. S t a t e , 584 So. 2d 556, 560 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991) . See a l s o M c G r i f f v. S t a t e , 908 So. 2d 961, 981 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 908 So. 2d 1024 ( A l a . 2004) ('Peremptory s t r i k e s b a s e d on t h e c r i m i n a l r e c o r d o f a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r do n o t v i o l a t e B a t s o n . D a r b y v. S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 117 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . ' ) . " Accordingly, determining proffered the trial court did not clearly err in

t h a t Sharp f a i l e d t o demonstrate t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s reasons for striking and Jurors no. 27 and by 11--prior Madison a sham.

undisclosed

convictions

prior

prosecution

County law enforcement--were p r e t e x t u a l or otherwise As n o t e d a b o v e , " [ i ] t i s well settled that

' [ a ] s l o n g as one

reason g i v e n by t h e p r o s e c u t o r

f o r the s t r i k e of a p o t e n t i a l concerning 62 So. 3d omitted).

juror i s s u f f i c i e n t l y race-neutral, a determination any other r e a s o n g i v e n n e e d n o t be made.'" M a r t i n ,

a t 1059-60 ( e m p h a s i s added; c i t a t i o n s a n d q u o t a t i o n Further, pretext, strike, Id. "'[w]here a p r o s e c u t o r

g i v e s a r e a s o n w h i c h may be a

... b u t a l s o g i v e s v a l i d a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s f o r t h e the r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons w i l l support the s t r i k e . ' "

(emphasis added).

Thus, S h a r p i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f

56

CR-05-2371 on h i s B a t s o n c l a i m as t o J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 1 1 . J u r o r s no. 52, 39, 65, 55, a n d 64 Sharp also argued that the prosecution d i d not strike
1 2

o t h e r C a u c a s i a n j u r o r s who were s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d t o A f r i c a n American Juror j u r o r s who were s t r u c k . F o r example, Sharp cites

no. 52, an A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n

male, and J u r o r

no. 79, a

C a u c a s i a n m a l e , who were b o t h s t u d y i n g and J u r o r no. 39, an A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n prison ministries. no.

t o become m i n i s t e r s ,

male who was i n v o l v e d i n explained that Juror

Although the State

52 was s t u d y i n g t o become a m i n i s t e r , i t a l s o s t a t e d t h a t

J u r o r no. 52's b r o t h e r h a d b e e n m u r d e r e d a n d t h a t J u r o r no. 52 had no. witnessed t h e murder. The t r i a l court found t h a t Juror

52 p r i v a t e l y r e v e a l e d rape," that

t h a t she h a d b e e n t h e v i c t i m o f an who had a c r i m i n a l As t o J u r o r no. a Seventh-Day court

"almost

she h a d a b r o t h e r

h i s t o r y , and t h a t she h a d w i t n e s s e d 39, the prosecution articulated

a murder. that he was

Adventist

involved i n prison ministries,

and t h e t r i a l

S h a r p a l s o c h a l l e n g e s t h e o t h e r r e a s o n s o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e f o r i t s s t r i k e s o f J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11. I n l i g h t o f our h o l d i n g t h a t t h o s e j u r o r s ' p r i o r u n d i s c l o s e d c o n v i c t i o n s provided a l e g i t i m a t e , r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r the State t o s t r i k e them, we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s S h a r p ' s a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e o t h e r r e a s o n s t h e S t a t e gave f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r s no. 27 and 11. M a r t i n , s u p r a .
1 2

57

CR-05-2371 f o u n d t h a t h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s w o u l d have p r e v e n t e d him " e n g a g [ i n g ] i n any on Saturdays."


1 3

from

a c t i v i t i e s other than r e l i g i o u s (RTR, R. 107.)

activities

Similarly,

Sharp c l a i m s p u r p o s e f u l

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n the

T h r e e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s i n d i c a t e d on t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t the r e l i g i o n they p r a c t i c e d g e n e r a l l y p r o h i b i t e d working on S a t u r d a y s - - J u r o r no. 11 and J u r o r no. 39 i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were S e v e n t h - D a y A d v e n t i s t s , and J u r o r no. 52 i n d i c a t e d t h a t she was a S a b b a t h K e e p e r . The S t a t e s t r u c k a l l t h r e e , a l t h o u g h o n l y one o f t h o s e j u r o r s , J u r o r no. 39, a c t u a l l y indicated, during individual voir dire, that his religious b e l i e f s (as a S e v e n t h - D a y A d v e n t i s t ) w o u l d p r o h i b i t him f r o m s e r v i n g as a j u r o r on S a t u r d a y .
13

S h a r p a l s o n o t e s J u r o r no. 29, a C a u c a s i a n who s e r v e d on Sharp's j u r y d e s p i t e the f o l l o w i n g exchange d u r i n g v o i r d i r e : "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . Number 29. ... [Y]ou i n d i c a t e d t h a t you have s o m e t h i n g on S a t u r d a y . ... "[JUROR NO. 2 9 ] : S a t u r d a y a f t e r n o o n , say a f t e r two o ' c l o c k , I n e e d t o s e t up some communion a t c h u r c h f o r Sunday s e r v i c e . I c o u l d do t h a t l a t e r b u t I a l s o have a p l a y t h a t my w i f e and I w o u l d go t o S a t u r d a y e v e n i n g . So, you know, I can g e t a r o u n d t h a t but t h a t ' s my preference i s t o do those things." (R. 353-54.) J u r o r no. 29's r e f e r e n c e t o a "Sunday s e r v i c e " - and h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a t a l t h o u g h h i s " p r e f e r e n c e [was] t o do t h o s e t h i n g s " ( i . e . , s e t up f o r communion a t h i s c h u r c h f o r t h e s e r v i c e on Sunday as w e l l as go t o a p l a y on S a t u r d a y e v e n i n g ) he n e v e r t h e l e s s c o u l d " g e t a r o u n d t h a t " - - d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t J u r o r no. 29's r e l i g i o n g e n e r a l l y p r o h i b i t e d w o r k i n g on S a t u r d a y s . Thus, J u r o r no. 29 was n o t s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d t o J u r o r s no. 11, 39, and 52. 58

CR-05-2371 prosecution's striking of Juror no. 65. Juror no. 65,

however, s t r o n g l y e x p r e s s e d penalty. express The C a u c a s i a n

t h a t he c o u l d n o t i m p o s e t h e d e a t h were empaneled d i d not

j u r o r s who

t h e same r e s p o n s e , a n d t h e t r i a l

court i n d i c a t e d t h i s o f J u r o r no. 65.

was a v a l i d r e a s o n b a s e d on i t s o b s e r v a t i o n The trial

c o u r t , w h i c h was i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o j u d g e t h e of the veniremembers, The made specific before us was findings do n o t clearly

demeanor regarding

these

jurors.

materials

demonstrate t h a t the t r i a l erroneous.

court's determination

A d d i t i o n a l l y , the prosecutor provided s e v e r a l reasons f o r striking no. 55: J u r o r no. 55, a n d t h e t r i a l (1) w a v e r e d counsel on the death court found that (2) knew Juror both

penalty;

defense

and t h e t r i a l

judge;

(3) h a d a s o n who h a d

been t h e v i c t i m social Although worker

o f an a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r ; a n d (4) w o r k e d as a and had seen abuse during her employment.

s e v e r a l C a u c a s i a n j u r o r s who were e m p a n e l e d i n d i c a t e d or t h e i r r e l a t i v e s were v i c t i m s o f a crime,

that e i t h e r they

o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t none o f t h e C a u c a s i a n jurors that Sharp claimed t o be similar to Juror no. 55

o p p o s e d t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y o r knew any o f t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d

59

CR-05-2371 in the Sharp's case. We d e f e r t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s as t o p r o f f e r e d reasons, and the no.

"genuineness" of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s i s no

there

e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i v e o f an i m p r o p e r m o t i v e by i n e x e r c i s i n g t h e p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e as t o J u r o r

prosecutor 55.

Sharp a l s o contends t h a t the S t a t e engaged i n p u r p o s e f u l discrimination in striking Juror no. 64. The trial court 64, the

found t h a t , a f t e r observing State had not

t h e demeanor o f J u r o r no.

engaged i n p u r p o s e f u l 64 had

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n because, p r e v i o u s l y served verdict. rejection We of do on a not

among o t h e r

t h i n g s , J u r o r no.

j u r y t h a t had see

r e s u l t e d i n an u n f a v o r a b l e i n the trial court's 64.

clear error

Sharp's

B a t s o n c l a i m as t o J u r o r no.

F i n a l l y , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 45A, have a g a i n adversely searched the record f o r any

A l a . R. App. e r r o r t h a t may and we

P.,

we

have have

a f f e c t e d Sharp's

substantial rights,

f o u n d none. Conclusion As noted above, the reasons given by the State to at the rebut After

second step the prima

of the facie

B a t s o n a n a l y s i s were s u f f i c i e n t of racial

showing

discrimination.

60

CR-05-2371 reviewing the transcript the of on voir dire, and the the juror briefs

questionnaires,

proceedings

remand,

f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court's court October d i d not 18, 2012, err order, we conclude t h a t the that Sharp in trial to

clearly that

i n holding State

failed

demonstrate discrimination

the

engaged

purposeful totality

i n v i o l a t i o n of Batson.

Indeed, the

of the r e l e v a n t f a c t s supports that the prosecutor's See

the t r i a l c o u r t ' s were n o t a t 477. We

determination race or

challenges U.S.

b a s e d on therefore claim.

ethnicity. the t r i a l

S n y d e r , 552

affirm

c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of Sharp's Batson

APPLICATION FOR 2012,

REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION OF

MARCH

23,

WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. Windom, P . J . , and B u r k e , J . , c o n c u r . J o i n e r , J . , concurs

specially. Kellum,

W e l c h and

Kellum,

J J . , d i s s e n t , w i t h w r i t i n g by joins.

J . , which Welch, J . ,

61

CR-05-2371 JOINER, J u d g e , concurring specially. A l t h o u g h I agree w i t h the law-of-the-case doctrine the S t a t e ' s 476

I concur i n the main o p i n i o n . main o p i n i o n ' s c o n c l u s i o n does not p e r m i t us to that the

c o n s i d e r "the m e r i t s of

argument t h a t [ J a s o n M i c h a e l ] S h a r p ' s B a t s o n [v. K e n t u c k y , U.S. So. 79 (1986),] c l a i m i s not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , " n.2, I write s e p a r a t e l y to note t h a t , I w o u l d be were

3d a t

we

writing

on a b l a n k s l a t e ,

i n c l i n e d t o agree opinion,

with

the S t a t e ' s p o s i t i o n .

T h i s c a s e , i n my

illustrates end

t h e n e e d f o r t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t t o a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y

the p r a c t i c e of u s i n g p l a i n - e r r o r review to i n i t i a t e a Batson c l a i m on a p p e a l . I n t h i s r e g a r d , I f u l l y a g r e e w i t h t h e v i e w s e x p r e s s e d by J u s t i c e M u r d o c k i n P a r t A o f h i s s p e c i a l w r i t i n g i n Ex p a r t e Floyd, [Ms. 1080107, S e p t . 28, 2012] So. 3d


1 4

, claims.

(Ala.

2012), r e g a r d i n g p l a i n - e r r o r r e v i e w of B a t s o n

14

As

J u s t i c e Murdock n o t e d i n h i s s p e c i a l

writing,

"The Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n B a t s o n d e a l t w i t h d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b a s e d on r a c e ; i t s d e c i s i o n i n J.E.B. v. A l a b a m a , 511 U.S. 127, 114 S. C t . 1419, 128 L. Ed. 2d 89 ( 1 9 9 4 ) , d e a l t w i t h d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b a s e d on g e n d e r . F o r s i m p l i c i t y , e x c e p t where t h e c o n t e x t i n d i c a t e s o t h e r w i s e , I use s u c h t e r m s as ' B a t s o n 62

CR-05-2371 In h i s s p e c i a l w r i t i n g i n F l o y d , J u s t i c e Murdock s t a t e d :

"The g r e a t e s t c o n c e r n I have a r i s i n g f r o m my r e v i e w o f t h i s c a s e i s t h e n o t i o n t h a t , as a g e n e r a l r u l e , B a t s o n i n q u i r e s may be i n i t i a t e d on a p p e a l f o r the f i r s t time under a ' p l a i n e r r o r ' s t a n d a r d . A sound case can be made that the t h r e e - s t e p e v i d e n t i a r y i n q u i r y p r e s c r i b e d by B a t s o n as a t o o l for f e r r e t i n g out p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was i n t e n d e d o n l y f o r use i n ' r e a l t i m e ' d u r i n g t h e t r i a l i n w h i c h t h e a l l e g e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o c c u r s and t h a t the r i g h t to i n i t i a t e a Batson i n q u i r y i s waived i f not e x e r c i s e d contemporaneously w i t h the s e l e c t i o n o f t h e j u r y and c a n n o t be r e v i v e d b a s e d on a p l a i n - e r r o r r e v i e w i n an a p p e a l a f t e r t h e t r i a l i s concluded." Ex p a r t e F l o y d , the result). So. 3d a t In e x p l a i n i n g (Murdock, h i s reason t h a t he used a J., concurring i n position, federal

for this

J u s t i c e Murdock n o t e d f i r s t cases i n which t h e c o u r t has

"[had] 'plain

f o u n d no error'

review to failed He then

i n i t i a t e a B a t s o n i n q u i r y on a p p e a l when t h e d e f e n d a n t to initiate that inquiry d u r i n g the t r i a l . "


1 5

Id.

a n a l y s i s , ' ' B a t s o n h e a r i n g , ' and ' B a t s o n i n q u i r y ' t o r e f e r t o t h e t h r e e - s t e p a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e d by b o t h B a t s o n and J.E.B." Ex p a r t e F l o y d , in the r e s u l t ) .


1 5

So. 3d a t

n.3

(Murdock,

J., concurring

J u s t i c e Murdock c i t e d federal courts "appl[ying] a where a d e f e n d a n t a c t u a l l y conduct a Batson a n a l y s i s but

s e v e r a l examples, however, o f p l a i n - e r r o r s t a n d a r d i n cases requested the t r i a l court to subsequently f a i l e d to r e g i s t e r 63

CR-05-2371 cited with several which I policy also reasons agree. i n support of h i s Those policy conclusion, bear

reasons

emphasizing here. First i s the r e a l i t y that

" i n most c a s e s , t h e t y p e o f i n q u i r y c o n t e m p l a t e d by B a t s o n s i m p l y c a n n o t be u n d e r t a k e n i n any m e a n i n g f u l way months o r y e a r s a f t e r t h e t r i a l . Pretrial r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g j u r o r s and r e a l - t i m e n o t e s t a k e n d u r i n g v o i r d i r e may have b e e n l o s t , and, more i m p o r t a n t l y , u n w r i t t e n memories and i m p r e s s i o n s o f body l a n g u a g e , v o i c e i n f l e c t i o n s , and t h e m y r i a d o f o t h e r n u a n c e s t h a t go i n t o s t r i k i n g j u r o r s l i k e l y w i l l have f a d e d , n o t o n l y f o r c o u n s e l , b u t a l s o f o r the j u d g e who must e v a l u a t e t h e p o s i t i o n s o f b o t h the d e f e n d a n t and t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n t h e c o n t e x t o f h i s o r h e r own o b s e r v a t i o n s a t t r i a l (and who, i n some c a s e s , w i l l have even l e f t t h e b e n c h i n t h e meantime)." So. In the 3d a t . c o n c e r n was not i m p l i c a t e d as the to

the present case, t h i s

e x t e n t i t c o u l d be

i n o t h e r cases because,

main

o p i n i o n d i s c u s s e s , the t r i a l such as the demeanor was the able of to

c o u r t i n f a c t remembered d e t a i l s veniremembers, several Even reasons so, as a and the

particular identify jurors.

prosecution strikes of

for i t s former

individual

an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n analysis." Ex p a r t e F l o y d , So. 3d a t J., c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t ) . 64

based n.4

upon t h a t (Murdock,

CR-05-2371 circuit judge I am aware o f t h e near impossibility that a

prosecutor or c i r c u i t trials (possibly

judge--who h a s e x p e r i e n c e d h u n d r e d s o f many capital-murder t r i a l s ) and

including

i n t e r a c t e d w i t h thousands would for

o f j u r o r s o v e r a number o f y e a r s -

remember t h e d e t a i l s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e s t r i k e s o f j u r o r s t h a t h a d c o n c l u d e d many months o r e v e n many y e a r s I share Justice Murdock's concern that the

a trial
1 6

before. passage

Thus,

of time w i l l

often render a Batson i n q u i r y i m p o s s i b l e

years a f t e r the f a c t . The second c o n c e r n J u s t i c e Murdock i d e n t i f i e d i s t h a t

"without a general rule r e q u i r i n g the i n i t i a t i o n of a Batson challenge a t t r i a l , counsel f o r a defendant charged w i t h a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e might decide--and logically so--to take a 'shot' at getting a f a v o r a b l e v e r d i c t f r o m a j u r y a b o u t w h i c h he o r she has some d o u b t s , s e c u r e i n t h e k n o w l e d g e t h a t he o r she c a n a l w a y s r a i s e a B a t s o n o b j e c t i o n on a p p e a l and g e t a s e c o n d ' s h o t ' i f t h i n g s do n o t work o u t with the f i r s t jury. See g e n e r a l l y , e . g . , U n i t e d S t a t e s v. P i e l a g o , 135 F.3d 703, 709 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1998) ('The c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s o b j e c t i o n r u l e f o s t e r s finality o f judgment and d e t e r s "sandbagging," s a v i n g an i s s u e f o r a p p e a l i n hope o f h a v i n g a n o t h e r

Indeed, i n t h i s case, Sharp's t r i a l c o n c l u d e d i n August 2006. He d i d n o t r a i s e a B a t s o n i s s u e u n t i l t h e f i l i n g o f h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i w i t h t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n May 2009, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t c o n d u c t a B a t s o n h e a r i n g u n t i l A p r i l 27, 2 0 1 0 - - a l m o s t f o u r y e a r s a f t e r Sharp's t r i a l had concluded.
1 6

65

CR-05-2371 s h o t a t t r i a l i f t h e f i r s t one m i s s e s . ' ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654, 666 n.12 (2d C i r . 2003) ('[W]e do n o t want t o e n c o u r a g e l a w y e r s t o " t e s t [their] fortunes with the f i r s t j u r y , " while k n o w i n g t h e r e w i l l be a " s e c o n d r o u n d i n t h e e v e n t o f a c o n v i c t i o n . " M c C r o r y [v. H e n d e r s o n ] , 82 F.3d [1243,] a t 1247 [ ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ] . ' ) . " Id. This policy first case squarely I was implicates Justice Murdock's Court second when i t same

concern. considered

n o t a member o f t h i s direct appeal

Sharp's

i n 2008--the

a p p e a l t h a t h a s y e t t o be f i n a l l y r e s o l v e d i n 2 0 1 3 - - b u t I n o t e t h a t Sharp's i n i t i a l b r i e f t o t h i s Court five issues for appellate review i n 2008 l i s t e d a total only of

and i n c l u d e d

s l i g h t l y more t h a n 20 p a g e s o f a r g u m e n t . gave no indication that he t h o u g h t

In that b r i e f , violation

Sharp had

a Batson

occurred. represented

I n t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , h o w e v e r , S h a r p - - s t i l l b y t h e same counsel who had r e p r e s e n t e d him i n

t h i s C o u r t - - f i l e d a 94-page p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i s e e k i n g r e v i e w on 29 s e p a r a t e issues. Although Sharp d i d n o t

t h i n k t h e a l l e g e d B a t s o n v i o l a t i o n was p l a i n enough t o r a i s e i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r i n t h i s C o u r t , i t was t h e f i r s t i s s u e he presented t o t h e Alabama Supreme Court. That tactic--if

66

CR-05-2371 i n d e e d i t was its a tactic


1 7

--essentially

bypassed

this

Court

on

i n i t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s appeal a year)
1 8

(a p r o c e s s t h a t years the

took of

more t h a n Sharp's

and

has

extended

by

review

case.

In commenting on t h i s m a t t e r , I i n no way i n t e n d t o disparage Sharp's appellate counsel; even i f counsel c o n s c i o u s l y d e c i d e d t o a t t e m p t t o b y p a s s t h i s C o u r t by n o t r a i s i n g p l a i n - e r r o r i s s u e s u n t i l the case r e a c h e d the Alabama Supreme C o u r t , o u r c a s e l a w and t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e do n o t p r o h i b i t s u c h a t a c t i c . M o r e o v e r , as a g e n e r a l m a t t e r , a d e f e n d a n t u n d e r a d e a t h s e n t e n c e who s e e k s f e d e r a l r e v i e w o f a c l a i m must f i r s t s e e k S t a t e r e v i e w o f t h a t claim. No appellate counsel can offer perfect r e p r e s e n t a t i o n - - i n some c a s e s , c o u n s e l may o b t a i n new i n s i g h t b e t w e e n t h e t i m e t h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r s and t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t c o n s i d e r s an a p p e a l i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has b e e n imposed; i n such a case, the r a i s i n g of a d d i t i o n a l i s s u e s not p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t c o u l d be j u s t i f i e d .
17

Even s o , I t h i n k t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i l l u s t r a t e s t h e n e e d f o r c h a n g e s t o t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e as w e l l as t o o u r c a s e l a w r e g a r d i n g p l a i n - e r r o r r e v i e w . If J u s t i c e M u r d o c k ' s p o s i t i o n i n Ex p a r t e F l o y d were t h e l a w - i . e . , i f p l a i n - e r r o r r e v i e w c o u l d n o t be u t i l i z e d t o i n i t i a t e a B a t s o n c l a i m on d i r e c t a p p e a l - - t h e t i m e i t has t a k e n t o consider Sharp's appeal would have been substantially s h o r t e n e d . In a d d i t i o n t o a d o p t i n g J u s t i c e Murdock's p o s i t i o n i n Ex p a r t e F l o y d , h o w e v e r , I t h i n k t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t should c o n s i d e r r e v i s i n g the Rules of A p p e l l a t e Procedure- i n c l u d i n g , f o r e x a m p l e , R u l e 39, A l a . R. App. P., which governs c e r t i o r a r i review of c a p i t a l c a s e s - - t o g e n e r a l l y p r e c l u d e a p e t i t i o n e r f r o m s e e k i n g p l a i n - e r r o r r e v i e w o f any i s s u e n o t f i r s t r a i s e d on a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t . T h e Supreme C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n r e q u i r i n g a remand f o r a B a t s o n h e a r i n g was i s s u e d on December 4, 2009. The c i r c u i t
18

67

CR-05-2371 The t h i r d p o l i c y c o n c e r n t h a t J u s t i c e Murdock identified

" i s the f a c t t h a t the f a i l u r e of the t r i a l c o u r t to i n i t i a t e a B a t s o n i n q u i r y s i m p l y i s n o t an ' e r r o r , ' p l a i n o r o t h e r w i s e , by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 'Error' ( t h a t i n t u r n m i g h t be deemed ' p l a i n e r r o r ' i n an a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e ) c o n t e m p l a t e s a m i s t a k e by the c o u r t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t n e c e s s i t a t e s a d e c i s i o n by the c o u r t t h a t d e v i a t e s from a l e g a l r u l e . "' The first limitation on appellate a u t h o r i t y under [the f e d e r a l p l a i n - e r r o r r u l e ] i s t h a t t h e r e i n d e e d be an " e r r o r . " D e v i a t i o n from a l e g a l r u l e i s " e r r o r " u n l e s s t h e r u l e has b e e n w a i v e d . For e x a m p l e , a d e f e n d a n t who knowingly and

c o u r t c o n d u c t e d t h e h e a r i n g on A p r i l 27, 2010, and t h e c a s e was r e s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t on J u l y 20, 2010. Sharp f i l e d a b r i e f on r e t u r n t o remand on A u g u s t 6, 2010. The S t a t e t h e n moved t o s t r i k e t h e b r i e f b e c a u s e t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s of A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e do n o t p r o v i d e f o r t h e f i l i n g , as o f r i g h t , o f a b r i e f on r e t u r n t o remand and S h a r p had n o t s o u g h t leave to f i l e h i s b r i e f . A l t h o u g h S h a r p s u b s e q u e n t l y moved f o r l e a v e t o f i l e t h e b r i e f he had a l r e a d y s u b m i t t e d , this Court--presumably e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y to d i s a l l o w a d d i t i o n a l b r i e f i n g n o t p e r m i t t e d as o f r i g h t by t h e Rules of A p p e l l a t e Procedure--granted the S t a t e ' s motion to s t r i k e Sharp's b r i e f . On opin ion F e b r u a r y 25, 2011, t h i s C o u r t i s s u e d an r e v e r s i n g and r e m a n d i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s B a t s o n oorrddeerr;; on M a r c h 23, 2012, h o w e v e r , t h i s C o u r t w i t h d r e w t h a t o p i n i o n on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g and i s s u e d a new o p i n i o n a f f i r m i n g the t r i a l c o u r t ' s order. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n n o t e s , s u m m a r i l y v a c a t e d our M a r c h 23, 2012, o p i n i o n and o r d e r e d us t o a l l o w t h e p a r t i e s t o b r i e f any i s s u e s a r i s i n g from the Batson o r d e r . That b r i e f i n g was c o m p l e t e d on December 17, 2012. 68

CR-05-2371 v o l u n t a r i l y pleads g u i l t y i n conformity w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 1 1 [ , F e d . R. Crim. P.,] c a n n o t have h i s c o n v i c t i o n v a c a t e d b y c o u r t o f a p p e a l s on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t he o u g h t t o have h a d a t r i a l . Because the r i g h t t o t r i a l i s w a i v a b l e , and because t h e d e f e n d a n t who e n t e r s a v a l i d g u i l t y p l e a waives t h a t r i g h t , h i s c o n v i c t i o n without a t r i a l i s not " e r r o r . " ' " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. O l a n o , 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S. C t . 1770, 123 L. E d . 2d 508 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . "The d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f t h e r i g h t t o g e n e r a t e e v i d e n c e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e t r i a l court pursuant t o the Batson procedure i s a d e c i s i o n f o r the defendant, not f o r the t r i a l c o u r t . I t i s a v o l u n t a r y d e c i s i o n as t o w h e t h e r t o i n v o k e a p r o c e d u r a l d e v i c e t h a t h a s b e e n made a v a i l a b l e t o defendants i n the t r i a l context. In t h i s respect, i t i s not u n l i k e a request f o r a jury t r i a l i t s e l f or a request t h a t the t r i a l judge p o l l t h e j u r o r s a f t e r a v e r d i c t i s r e n d e r e d , o r e v e n more a n a l o g o u s , a f a i l u r e t o conduct v o i r d i r e of a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r . Not r e q u e s t i n g i t may be a s t r a t e g i c ' m i s t a k e ' b y defense counsel, but counsel's mistake i s not the t r i a l court's 'error.' "The l a c k o f a r e q u e s t b y d e f e n s e c o u n s e l f o r a Batson review might w e l l occur i n the context of circumstances more t h a n s u f f i c i e n t t o c r e a t e an i n f e r e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , y e t the law a l l o w s f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t defense c o u n s e l m i g h t have r e a s o n s f o r believing that a particular juror or the jury as a w h o l e i s a c c e p t a b l e o r e v e n t h a t t h e j u r y as s e l e c t e d m i g h t be more f a v o r a b l e t o h i s o r h e r c l i e n t t h a n some e n t i r e l y new j u r y c h o s e n f r o m an unknown v e n i r e . The f a c t t h a t c o u n s e l i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r b y o v e r s i g h t f a i l s t o use a l l t h e p r o c e d u r a l d e v i c e s a v a i l a b l e t o him o r h e r i n t h e t r i a l c o n t e x t does n o t somehow 69

CR-05-2371 translate otherwise, into some sort of error, plain on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . or

"Put d i f f e r e n t l y , t h e mere e x i s t e n c e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t w a r r a n t s t h e iinniit ti a t i o n of a Batson inquiry--a prima facie case of purposeful d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s not the c o n d i t i o n t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . No c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n has e v e r been d i s c a r d e d m e r e l y because t h i s f i r s t s t e p i s s a t i s f i e d , i . e . , m e r e l y b e c a u s e an i n f e r e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n can r e a s o n a b l y be drawn f r o m t h e circumstances presented; actual, purposeful d i s c r i m i n a t i o n must e x i s t . This f i r s t step and, indeed, the e n t i r e t y of 'the three-step Batson i n q u i r y ' has b e e n d e s c r i b e d as m e r e l y 'a t o o l f o r producing the evidence necessary to the difficult t a s k of " f e r r e t i n g out d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n s e l e c t i o n s discretionary by nature."' United States v. Guerrero, 595 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th C i r . 2010) ( G o u l d , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; see a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M c A l l i s t e r , (No. 10-6280, Aug. 1, 2012) (6th C i r . 2012) ( t o same e f f e c t ) (not p u b l i s h e d i n the F e d e r a l R e p o r t e r ) . As t h i s C o u r t has s a i d , a B a t s o n r e v i e w ' s h a l l n o t be r e s t r i c t e d by t h e m u t a b l e and often overlapping boundaries i n h e r e n t w i t h i n a B a t s o n - a n a l y s i s framework, but, r a t h e r , s h a l l f o c u s s o l e l y upon t h e " p r o p r i e t y o f t h e u l t i m a t e f i n d i n g o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n v e l non." ' H u n t l e y v. S t a t e , 627 So. 2d 1013, 1016 ( A l a . 1992) (emphasis added). "Thus, t h e ' e r r o r ' t h a t must e x i s t t o w a r r a n t d i s t u r b i n g the p r o s e c u t o r ' s peremptory s t r i k e s i s a c t u a l , p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n the s e l e c t i o n of the jury. It is this actual, purposeful d i s c r i m i n a t i o n then, r a t h e r than merely a prima f a c i e c a s e f o r s u c h d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , t h a t must be ' p l a i n ' i n t h e t r i a l - c o u r t r e c o r d i f we a r e to p r o v i d e a d e f e n d a n t who f a i l s t o o b j e c t t i m e l y t o a p r o s e c u t o r ' s s t r i k e s r e l i e f f r o m t h o s e s t r i k e s on a posttrial basis." 70

CR-05-2371 Ex p a r t e F l o y d , the result). As J u s t i c e M u r d o c k n o t e d , t h e r e may defense The use counsel's not of p l a i n - e r r o r raising a Batson be v a l i d r e a s o n s f o r objection a Batson at trial. So. 3d a t (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n

review to i n i t i a t e judge

inquiry, of

however, p l a c e s a t r i a l questioning, c o u n s e l who in

i n the p r e c a r i o u s p o s i t i o n trial strategy


1 9

real-time,

the

of Like

defense Justice

f a i l s t o i n i t i a t e s u c h an i n q u i r y .

M u r d o c k , I q u e s t i o n t h e wisdom o f r e q u i r i n g t h e t r i a l j u d g e t o essentially this issue. second-guess the defense counsel's strategy on

T h i s i s o f t e n t h e same c o u n s e l whom t h e t r i a l j u d g e has a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t b e c a u s e t h e j u d g e has confidence that this particular counsel possesses the r e q u i s i t e l e g a l s k i l l s , c o u r t r o o m a b i l i t i e s , and s t r a t e g i c acumen n e c e s s a r y t o d e f e n d an a c c u s e d i n a c a p i t a l c a s e .
1 9

71

CR-05-2371 KELLUM, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I must d i s s e n t f r o m t h e m a j o r i t y ' s h o l d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g S h a r p ' s m o t i o n made p u r s u a n t t o Batson v. K e n t u c k y , the record, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). After thoroughly that

reviewing

I have no c h o i c e

but t o conclude

a l l t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n b y t h e S t a t e f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 were p r e t e x t u a l a n d t h u s i m p r o p e r u n d e r B a t s o n . As t h e m a j o r i t y r e c o g n i z e s , a three-step i n e v a l u a t i n g a Batson claim, As e x p l a i n e d by t h e

p r o c e s s must be f o l l o w e d .

U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n M i l l e r - E l v. C o c k r e l l , 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 (2003):

" F i r s t , a d e f e n d a n t must make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e h a s b e e n e x e r c i s e d on the b a s i s of race. [ B a t s o n , ] 476 U.S., a t 96-97. Second, i f that showing has been made, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n must o f f e r a r a c e - n e u t r a l b a s i s f o r s t r i k i n g the j u r o r i n question. I d . , a t 97-98. Third, i n l i g h t of the p a r t i e s ' submissions, the t r i a l c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s shown p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I d . , a t 98." In this case, the majority step c o r r e c t l y concludes that Sharp

satisfied

the f i r s t

of the process

-- e s t a b l i s h i n g a held of 4,

prima f a c i e case o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . that the record in this case Sharp, 72

The Supreme C o u r t an inference

raised

discrimination.

Ex p a r t e

[Ms. 1080959, December

CR-05-2371 2009] concludes process strikes. -So. 3d the ( A l a . 2009) . State The m a j o r i t y a l s o c o r r e c t l y the second step of the

that

satisfied

providing

facially

race-neutral

reasons

for i t s the

As t h e m a j o r i t y n o t e s ,

a l l t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n by

S t a t e f o r i t s s t r i k e s of A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n

j u r o r s were b a s e d on and as

s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e j u r o r ' s r a c e , and b o t h t h i s C o u r t the Alabama Supreme Court have specifically recognized the State

r a c e - n e u t r a l the v a r i o u s

r e a s o n s a s s e r t e d by

here.

I t i s w i t h the m a j o r i t y ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Sharp f a i l e d t o satisfy h i s burden under the third step of -the process I - must

establishing disagree. is on the

purposeful

discrimination

that

In the t h i r d step of the Batson p r o c e s s , defendant for its to establish were that the

the burden asserted thus,

State's and,

reasons

strikes

pretextual

discriminatory. "Once the prosecutor has articulated a n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y reason f o r c h a l l e n g i n g the b l a c k j u r o r s , t h e o t h e r s i d e can o f f e r e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e a s o n s o r e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e m e r e l y a sham or p r e t e x t . [ P e o p l e v.] W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3d [258] a t 282, 583 P.2d [748] a t 763-64, 148 C a l . R p t r . [890] a t 906 [ ( 1 9 7 8 ) ] . Other than reasons t h a t are o b v i o u s l y c o n t r i v e d , the f o l l o w i n g are i l l u s t r a t i v e o f t h e t y p e s o f e v i d e n c e t h a t can be u s e d t o show sham o r p r e t e x t : 73

CR-05-2371 " 1 . The r e a s o n s g i v e n a r e n o t r e l a t e d to the f a c t s of the case. "2. T h e r e was a l a c k o f q u e s t i o n i n g t o the challenged juror, or a lack of meaningful questions. "3. D i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t -- p e r s o n s w i t h t h e same o r s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as t h e c h a l l e n g e d j u r o r were n o t s t r u c k . ... "4. D i s p a r a t e e x a m i n a t i o n o f members of t h e v e n i r e ; e.g., a q u e s t i o n d e s i g n e d t o provoke a c e r t a i n response t h a t i s l i k e l y t o d i s q u a l i f y t h e j u r o r was a s k e d t o b l a c k j u r o r s , b u t n o t t o w h i t e j u r o r s . ... "5. The prosecutor, having 6 p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s , u s e d 2 t o remove t h e o n l y 2 b l a c k s r e m a i n i n g on t h e v e n i r e . ... "6. 'An e x p l a n a t i o n b a s e d on a g r o u p b i a s where t h e g r o u p t r a i t i s n o t shown t o apply to the challenged juror specifically.' S l a p p y [ v . S t a t e ] , 503 So. 2d [350] a t 355 [ ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ] . F o r i n s t a n c e , an a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t e a c h e r s as a c l a s s a r e t o o l i b e r a l , w i t h o u t any s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s h a v i n g been d i r e c t e d t o the panel or t h e i n d i v i d u a l j u r o r showing the p o t e n t i a l l y liberal nature of the challenged juror." Ex parte Branch, 526 So. 2d 609, 624 for striking of each (Ala. black 1987). juror must "'The be

explanation evaluated

offered in light

the explanations

offered

f o r the i n light

prosecutor's

other peremptory s t r i k e s ,

a n d as w e l l ,

74

CR-05-2371 o f t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . '" So. 325, 2d 676, 683 ( A l a . 1991) Ex p a r t e B i r d , 594

( q u o t i n g Gamble v. S t a t e , 257 Ga. (1987)). be In other in words, a l l

327, 357 S.E.2d 792, 795 circumstances must

relevant

considered

determining See, e.g., reviewing the

whether p u r p o s e f u l

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n h a s b e e n shown.

S n y d e r v. L o u i s i a n a , 552 U.S. 472, 478 (2008) ( " [ I ] n a ruling claimed that to bear be a Batson error,

a l l of

circumstances must be

upon t h e i s s u e

of r a c i a l

animosity

consulted."). the majority for the cites Ex p a r t e Byrd, supra, and

Although Snyder,

supra,

proposition

that

a l l relevant

circumstances, State

i n c l u d i n g the other must be

r e a s o n s p r o f f e r e d by t h e considered in determining

for i t s strikes,

w h e t h e r any one r e a s o n p r o f f e r e d b y t h e S t a t e i s p r e t e x t u a l o r non-pretextual, determining the majority does not follow that law i n

t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s s t r i k e s a g a i n s t J u r o r s 27 a n d 11 Rather, the majority, r e l y i n g on M a r t i n

are n o n - p r e t e x t u a l .

v. S t a t e , 62 So. 3d 1050 authored, and the

( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , an o p i n i o n I cited therein, rejects Sharp's

cases

argument t h a t a l l r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s In M a r t i n , w r i t i n g f o r the Court, 75

must be

considered.

I explained the general

CR-05-2371 r u l e i n A l a b a m a as f o l l o w s : " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t ' [ a ] s l o n g as one reason g i v e n by t h e p r o s e c u t o r f o r t h e s t r i k e o f a potential juror i s sufficiently race-neutral, a d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g any o t h e r r e a s o n g i v e n n e e d n o t be made.' J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 648 So. 2d 629, 632 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . See a l s o J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 791 So. 2d 979, 1009 n.6 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ; Brown v. S t a t e , 705 So. 2d 871, 874 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; a n d Wood v. S t a t e , 715 So. 2d 812, 816 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a f f ' d , 715 So. 2d 819 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . 'Where a p r o s e c u t o r g i v e s a r e a s o n w h i c h may be a p r e t e x t , ... b u t a l s o g i v e s v a l i d a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s for the s t r i k e , the r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons will support the s t r i k e . ' B a t t l e v. S t a t e , 574 So. 2d Q/IQ Q/IQ / A l ^ r'T-nm T\^^ 1QQn\ 943, 949 ( Ala. C r i m . App. 1990). " Martin, 62 So. 3d a t 1 0 5 9 - 6 0 .
20

In other words, t h e g e n e r a l reason

r u l e i s t h a t once a c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t one s p e c i f i c

p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e f o r a c h a l l e n g e d peremptory s t r i k e i s both the race court n e u t r a l and n o n - p r e t e x t u a l , t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i t i s unnecessary f o r

as t o w h e t h e r any o f t h e

other reasons p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e f o r t h a t s t r i k e a r e a l s o race n e u t r a l and n o n - p r e t e x t u a l . However, i t i s i n m a k i n g t h e

I note t h a t the U n i t e d States Court of Appeals f o r the E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t has e x p r e s s l y r e j e c t e d Alabama's g e n e r a l r u l e as b e i n g "an u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w u n d e r B a t s o n . " McGahee v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f C o r r e c t i o n s , 560 F.3d 1252, 1264 (11th C i r . 2009). However, t h i s C o u r t i s n o t b o u n d b y t h e decisions of the Eleventh C i r c u i t . See, e . g . , Ex p a r t e H a l e , 6 So. 3d 452, 458 n.5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) .
2 0

76

CR-05-2371 determination the State w h e t h e r t h a t one specific reason that proffered a court by is

i s p r e t e x t u a l or

non-pretextual

required to consider a l l relevant circumstances, other strike reasons and the p r o f f e r e d by the State the for

i n c l u d i n g the particular

that

r e a s o n s p r o f f e r e d by Martin nor the

State rule

for i t s other as cited in one 27

strikes. Martin say

Neither

general

otherwise.

Thus, i n d e t e r m i n i n g

w h e t h e r any

r e a s o n p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e f o r i t s s t r i k e s o f J u r o r s no. and 11 i s p r e t e x t u a l o r n o n - p r e t e x t u a l , I c o n s i d e r , as i n c l u d i n g the strikes and

I did other the

i n M a r t i n , a l l the r e l e v a n t circumstances, reasons p r o f f e r e d by the State for

those

r e a s o n s p r o f f e r e d by t h e

State f o r i t s other

strikes.

"Under A l a b a m a law, the trial j u d g e must ' e v a l u a t [ e ] t h e e v i d e n c e and e x p l a n a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d ' and 'determine whether the explanations are s u f f i c i e n t t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f b i a s . ' B r a n c h , 526 So. 2d a t 624. 'The t r i a l j u d g e c a n n o t m e r e l y a c c e p t t h e s p e c i f i c r e a s o n s g i v e n ... a t f a c e v a l u e ; t h e j u d g e must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e f a c i a l l y neutral explanations are contrived to avoid a d m i t t i n g the a c t s of group d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . ' I d . " Smith v. Jackson, 770 So. 2d 1068, 1072-73 (Ala. 2000)

(emphasis added). facially credulous neutral

" [ T ] h e p r o p o n e n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n s -- e v e n i f -are Ex not parte 77 viewed by the 681 judiciary So. 2d 173, with 179

naivete."

Bruner,

CR-05-2371 (Ala. 1996) in (Cook, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) . determining whether a "[T]he has critical proved

question

[defendant]

p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n at step three i s the of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s At this stage, justification

persuasiveness strike. may

f o r h i s peremptory

' i m p l a u s i b l e or will) be

fantastic

justifications for

(and

probably

f o u n d t o be U.S.

pretexts a t 339

purposeful Purkett

discrimination.'" v. E l e m , 514 U.S.

C o c k r e l l , 537 765, 768

(quoting

(1995)). because " ' [ t ] h e t r i a l appellate court to

As t h e m a j o r i t y c o r r e c t l y o b s e r v e s , court i s in a better p o s i t i o n than

the

d i s t i n g u i s h b o n a f i d e r e a s o n s f r o m sham e x c u s e s , ' " H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 2 So. v. State, 3d 880, So. 899 2d must ( A l a . C r i m . App. 561 2007) ( q u o t i n g H e a r d 1991)), an

584

556, give the

( A l a . C r i m . App. to a

appellate findings

court and

deference circuit

trial ruling

court's on the

"'reverse

court's

Batson motion only i f i t i s " c l e a r l y erroneous."'" 43 So. turn 3d a t 12 ( q u o t i n g C o o p e r , 611 State, 549 So. to 2d the not a t 340. 78 So. 616, 2d a t 463, 619

Johnson, quoting in App. the

J a c k s o n v.

(Ala. Crim. expressed by

1989)). majority, relief."

However,

contrary

belief by

"[d]eference Cockrell, 537

does U.S.

definition Rather, "'"[a]

preclude finding

CR-05-2371 is 'clearly erroneous' when although there i s evidence to

s u p p o r t i t , t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t on t h e e n t i r e e v i d e n c e i s l e f t w i t h t h e d e f i n i t e and f i r m c o n v i c t i o n t h a t a m i s t a k e has been committed."'" F l e t c h e r v. S t a t e , 703 So. 2d 432, 436 ( A l a . ( q u o t i n g D a v i s v. S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 309, 312 q u o t i n g i n t u r n P o w e l l v. S t a t e , 548 a f f ' d , 548 So. 2d 605 with a definite and

C r i m . App. 1997) (Ala.

C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ,

So. 2d 590, 594 (Ala. 1989)).

( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , In t h i s case, I am left

f i r m c o n v i c t i o n that a mistake J u r o r s no. 27 and 11.

has been made w i t h r e s p e c t t o

As t h e m a j o r i t y n o t e s , a f t e r c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e ,

there

were 71 j u r o r s on t h e v e n i r e , o f w h i c h 14, o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 p e r c e n t , were A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n . approximately jurors. only one The p r o s e c u t o r s t r u c k 11, o r African-American and

79 p e r c e n t , o f t h o s e e l i g i b l e

The d e f e n s e

s t r u c k two A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n j u r o r s , juror to In sat on Sharp's

African-American is U.S. found unlikely at 342. --

jury.

"Happenstance Cockrell, Supreme 537 Court

produce

this

disparity." the Alabama

i t s opinion, the stringent

under

plain-error

79

CR-05-2371 standard of review


2 1

-- t h a t

the record

indicated that

some

African-American questions were not similar struck

j u r o r s who were s t r u c k p r o v i d e d to the responses and that the who of Caucasian

responses to jurors that who the the Under

record were

indicated struck

African-American

jurors

shared

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f r a c e b u t were o t h e r w i s e these circumstances, strong, no.

heterogenous.

the prima f a c i e case of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s the reasons for striking Jurors

and I must c o n s i d e r

27 and 11 i n l i g h t o f t h a t s t r o n g p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . On remand, t h e S t a t e p r o f f e r e d t h r e e r e a s o n s f o r s t r i k i n g

Juror

no.

27,

s e t out

i n the

order

i n which

the

State

p r o f f e r e d the reasons:

(1) h e r employment as a p a c k e r on an

a s s e m b l y l i n e a t a T a r g e t D i s t r i b u t i o n C e n t e r and h e r p r e v i o u s employment that at a Burger King fast-food restaurant indicated 79 on t h e i n the

she l a c k e d

" s o p h i s t i c a t i o n " ; (2) on q u e s t i o n asking,

juror questionnaire,

" I f you've h e a r d a n y t h i n g

"'"[T]he p l a i n - e r r o r doctrine a p p l i e s only i f the e r r o r i s ' p a r t i c u l a r l y e g r e g i o u s ' and i f i t ' s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t [ s ] t h e fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'"'" Ex p a r t e B i l l u p s , 88 So. 3d 1079, 1083 ( A l a . 2010) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Brown, 11 So. 3d 933, 935-36 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n H a l l v. S t a t e , 820 So. 2d 113, 121-22 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ) .
2 1

80

CR-05-2371 m e d i a r e g a r d i n g t h i s c a s e , do you f e e l you c o u l d s t i l l be f a i r and i m p a r t i a l ? " she c i r c l e d "no"; a n d (3) she h a d b e e n c h a r g e d i n Madison County w i t h s i x counts o f p o s s e s s i o n of marijuana

i n t h e s e c o n d d e g r e e a n d " [ i ] t a p p e a r e d " t o t h e S t a t e t h a t she had b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f one o f t h o s e the p r o s e c u t o r district c o u n t s i n 1990, a t i m e when f o r the

had been e x c l u s i v e l y a drug p r o s e c u t o r

attorney's o f f i c e .

The S t a t e p r o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g

reasons f o r s t r i k i n g

J u r o r no. 11, a l s o s e t o u t i n t h e o r d e r (1) she was a S e v e n t h Day h a d no employment

i n w h i c h t h e S t a t e p r o f f e r e d them: Adventist; history (2) she was the l a s t then

unemployed,

over

10 y e a r s ,

a n d i n d i c a t e d on t h e j u r o r

q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t she d i d n o t know h e r e x - h u s b a n d ' s p l a c e o f employment; (3) she d i d n o t a n s w e r q u e s t i o n 79 on t h e j u r o r 74; a n d (4) check. I

q u e s t i o n n a i r e and d i d n o t " f u l l y " she had a p r i o r

answer q u e s t i o n

conviction f o r i s s u i n g a worthless

first both

address those Juror no.

reasons the State p r o f f e r e d f o r s t r i k i n g 27 and Juror no. 11 -"lack of

sophistication,"

alleged prior

c o n v i c t i o n s , and answers o r -- a n d t h e n t u r n t o Juror

l a c k t h e r e o f on t h e j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s the no. remaining

reason the State p r o f f e r e d f o r s t r i k i n g

11 -- t h a t she was a S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t . 81

CR-05-2371 I. The for State p r o f f e r e d as i t s " f i r s t Juror no. 27 that she and f o r e m o s t " reason

striking

lacked "sophistication"

b e c a u s e she w o r k e d as a p a c k e r and p r o f f e r e d as a r e a s o n f o r striking knowledge used "lack Juror no. 11 that she was unemployed The and State lacked first

of her ex-husband's of

employment. a reason

s o p h i s t i c a t i o n " as

for i t s strike i t struck, "[T]he that as

a g a i n s t J u r o r no. 37, t h e s e c o n d A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n who was a c u s t o d i a n .

In doing so, the State e x p l a i n e d : was

C o u r t i s w e l l aware t h a t t h i s

a c i r c u m s t a n t i a l case

r e a l l y t h e t h r u s t o f t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e was DNA e v i d e n c e , the Court knows is somewhat sophisticated and

technical

evidence. was

So h i s s o p h i s t i c a t i o n s o c i a l l y The State noted

or p r o f e s s i o n a l l y later that "with one o f

n o t e d by t h e S t a t e . "

respect

to p r o f e s s i o n a l or s o c i a l

s o p h i s t i c a t i o n ...

t h e m a i n c o n c e r n s o f t h e S t a t e i n t h i s c a s e [was] t o , i n f a c t , get a jury that could comprehend DNA evidence." Thus, i t

a p p e a r s t h a t t h e S t a t e was u s i n g t h e t e r m " s o p h i s t i c a t i o n " as a synonym no. 27 for "intelligence" not In sufficiently addition, and t h a t i t b e l i e v e d t h a t intelligent although 82 the to understand State did Juror DNA not

was

evidence.

CR-05-2371 s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s e r t t h a t J u r o r no. 11 l a c k e d " s o p h i s t i c a t i o n " as i t d i d with Juror no. 27, i t i s c l e a r t h a t the State's

reasoning

was t h e same f o r b o t h j u r o r s .

The S t a t e r e f e r r e d t o

J u r o r no. 11's unemployment and h e r l a c k o f k n o w l e d g e o f h e r ex-husband's presenting," employment "in light of the evidence we were

t h u s s h o w i n g t h a t i t a l s o b e l i e v e d J u r o r no. 11 intelligent the t o u n d e r s t a n d DNA State's heavy evidence. on

was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y The "lack majority

dismisses

reliance

o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n " as jurors

a reason

for striking

several trial in

potential court

l a r g e l y because, rely solely on

i t concludes, proffered

the

d i d not

that

reason

determining instead for

w h e t h e r t h e r e was p u r p o s e f u l other race-neutral

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , but offered

"cited

reasons the State So. 3d a t .

striking"

several jurors.

Although I

do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a g r e e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r , even assuming t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o failure

be c o r r e c t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s , and now t h e m a j o r i t y ' s ,

t o c o n s i d e r t h e S t a t e ' s h e a v y r e l i a n c e on l a c k o f i n t e l l i g e n c e as a reason for striking several African-American jurors

i g n o r e s t h e s e t t l e d l a w , as e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , t h a t a l l r e l e v a n t circumstances bearing on the 83 issue of racial animosity,

CR-05-2371 i n c l u d i n g the State's p r o f f e r e d reasons f o ri t s other must be c o n s i d e r e d when r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l Batson motion. Ex p a r t e B i r d , Although, strikes,

c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a

See S n y d e r v . L o u i s i a n a , 552 U.S. a t 478, a n d 594 So. 2d a t 683. as n o t e d a b o v e , l o w i n t e l l i g e n c e i s a facially

r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r a peremptory s t r i k e , i t i s nonetheless a suspect reason because of the inherent susceptibility of

abuse. 1265

See McGahee v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f C o r r . , 560 F.3d 1252, (11th C i r . 2009) ("[T]he State's claim that several

African-Americans

were o f 'low i n t e l l i g e n c e ' the role in the In t h i s

i sa particularly

suspicious explanation given intelligence' discrimination has played

t h a t t h e c l a i m o f 'low history case, of racial

from j u r i e s . " ) .

the reason i s

e v e n more s u s p e c t is based solely

because i t i s u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d and on a g r o u p b i a s . Indeed, the t r i a l court

f o u n d t h i s r e a s o n t o be s u s p e c t w i t h r e s p e c t t o J u r o r s no. 37, 39, 52, 11, 38, a n d 74, n o t i n g a t v a r i o u s p o i n t s i n i t s o r d e r the State's conclusion necessary that to

that the record d i d not support some of these jurors lacked

the i n t e l l i g e n c e

u n d e r s t a n d DNA e v i d e n c e a n d t h a t a p e r s o n ' s employment s t a t u s alone i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h 84 a lack of intelligence.

CR-05-2371 Although by the t r i a l with c o u r t d i d f i n d t h i s r e a s o n t o be respect court to Jurors i s itself supported

the record by

no. 27 a n d 47, t h a t unsupported by t h e

finding record.

the t r i a l

With respect

t o J u r o r no. 27, t h e t r i a l

court

found the supported and t h e my

lack-of-intelligence by the record given

r e a s o n t o be r a c e - n e u t r a l a n d on t h e c o u r t ' s case." observations

"[b]ased on t h i s

responses review

(RTR, C. 108.) that the only

However,

of the proceedings

reflects

"responses" occupation, during roll

J u r o r no. 27 gave d u r i n g v o i r d i r e were h e r name, and marital status, a l l of which she s u p p l i e d

call. the

She a n s w e r e d no q u e s t i o n s

during general v o i r d i r e of during individual statement could

e n t i r e v e n i r e , n o r was she q u e s t i o n e d It i sdifficult name,

voir dire. as to

t o f a t h o m how a s i m p l e and marital

one's

occupation,

status

establish former

a lack of i n t e l l i g e n c e . judge himself,

A l s o , as Judge J o i n e r , a notes in his special

circuit

concurrence, circuit

i t i s a "near i m p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a p r o s e c u t o r o r -who has e x p e r i e n c e d hundreds of trials

judge

( p o s s i b l y i n c l u d i n g many c a p i t a l - m u r d e r t r i a l s ) with thousands of jurors over 85 a number

and i n t e r a c t e d -would

of years

CR-05-2371 remember t h e d e t a i l s trial that surrounding many the strikes months of jurors f o ra many years

had concluded So. 3d a t

o r even

before."

(Joiner, J . ,concurring specially) . between a p e r s o n ' s the t r i a l level. court Thus, to Juror

In a d d i t i o n , I f a i l exterior observed appearance --

t o s e e any c o n n e c t i o n a n d demeanor person's court's

-- w h i c h

and t h a t

intellectual

contrary to the t r i a l

finding, with respect

no. 27, t h e l a c k - o f - i n t e l l i g e n c e r e a s o n p r o f f e r e d b y t h e S t a t e i s w h o l l y u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . W i t h r e s p e c t t o J u r o r no. 47, t h e t r i a l that i t had observed this court also noted and t h a t

j u r o r a n d h e r demeanor

" l a c k o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n o f a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r when f a c e d w i t h technical expert evidence in a case has been held to

c o n s t i t u t e a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason f o r t h e use of a peremptory challenge." during roll (RTR. C. call her 110.) However, other than stating

name, o c c u p a t i o n ,

and m a r i t a l s t a t u s , during general voir

J u r o r no. 47 a n s w e r e d o n l y two q u e s t i o n s dire,

one o f w h i c h r e q u i r e d J u r o r no. 47 s i m p l y j u r o r number. individual voir

to raise her Juror

hand and t o s t a t e h e r a s s i g n e d no. 47 was q u e s t i o n e d during

Although dire,

she was f o r me t o

asked only f i v e questions.

Again, 86

i t isdifficult

CR-05-2371 f a t h o m how a p e r s o n ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l c o u l d be a s c e r t a i n e d after only a few sentences. with respect Thus, contrary to the trial

court's

finding,

t o J u r o r no. 47, t h e l a c k - o f -

i n t e l l i g e n c e r e a s o n p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e i s a l s o u n s u p p o r t e d by the record. In a d d i t i o n , the S t a t e ' s Jurors no. 27 and sole basis f o r concluding able to understand that DNA a no

11 w o u l d n o t be jurors' no. 11

e v i d e n c e was packer and

those Juror

employment -- J u r o r no. 27 was was then unemployed and had

knowledge trial

o f h e r e x - h u s b a n d ' s employment. found or the i n i t s order, lack of the nature by

However, of a itself,

as t h e person's i s not

court

employment

employment,

s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i s h a l a c k of i n t e l l i g e n c e .

Nor i s t h e r e

any l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a p e r s o n ' s l a c k o f k n o w l e d g e o f an ex-spouse's employment evidence. and that person's ability to

u n d e r s t a n d DNA

Yet the prosecutor

made no a t t e m p t

i n t h i s case t o q u e s t i o n these the venire, f o r that ability matter)

j u r o r s ( o r any o f t h e j u r o r s on regarding DNA their intelligence "[T]he

level

or t h e i r

to understand

evidence.

f a i l u r e o f t h e S t a t e t o engage i n any m e a n i n g f u l v o i r d i r e on a subject of a l l e g e d concern i s evidence that the e x p l a n a t i o n 87

CR-05-2371 i s a sham and 594 So. a pretext for discrimination." Ex p a r t e Bird,

2d a t 683. no. 27 and

Rather, the p r o s e c u t o r 11 would not be able

m e r e l y assumed t h a t to understand DNA

Jurors

e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e J u r o r no. o r b l u e - c o l l a r j o b and knowledge of her

27 was

employed i n a manual-labor 11 was u n e m p l o y e d and had Therefore, no

J u r o r no.

ex-husband's

employment. 27 and 11 was

this on

r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r s no. a group b i a s against

c l e a r l y based the

b l u e - c o l l a r w o r k e r s and

unemployed

where t h e t r a i t o f c o n c e r n -- i n t e l l i g e n c e -- was a p p l y t o t h e s e two conclusive, group particular jurors. bias is evidence

n o t shown t o not a

Although c e r t a i n l y that the reason for

s t r i k e i s a sham o r p r e t e x t

for discrimination. this "lack-ofno. 27 and 11,

I a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e S t a t e a p p e a r e d t o use sophistication" but for a total reason not of 8 of merely for Jurors of 37,

i t s 11

strikes

African-American 39, 52, 27, of 11, an

j u r o r s -- as n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , J u r o r s no. 38, 47, and 74, were a l l struck, in

part,

because

a l l e g e d l a c k o f " s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . " I n o t h e r w o r d s , 72 of the State's at strikes against on African-American

percent

j u r o r s were lack of the

based,

least i n part, This

those

j u r o r s ' supposed

intelligence.

is a troubling statistic 88

i n l i g h t of

CR-05-2371 h i s t o r i c a l l y suspect nature of t h i s reason. is the fact that the record does Equally troubling any o f t h e

not support As w i t h

State's 11, 47,

strikes

forthis

reason.

J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 37, 39, 52, 38, DNA

the State's

supposed b e l i e f sufficient

that Jurors

a n d 74 l a c k e d

intelligence

to understand jurors'

e v i d e n c e was a l s o b a s e d p r i m a r i l y on t h o s e

employment

-- J u r o r no. 37 was a c u s t o d i a n , J u r o r no. 39 was u n e m p l o y e d , J u r o r no. 52 d r o v e a f o r k l i f t , J u r o r no. 38 was a r e n t a l - c a r

a g e n t , J u r o r no. 47 was a c a f e t e r i a manager, a n d J u r o r no. 74 was a s e c r e t a r y . With respect t o these s i x jurors, the State

made t h e same u n s u p p o r t e d g r o u p - b a s e d a s s u m p t i o n i t made w i t h J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 -- t h a t t h o s e or who worked manual-labor j u r o r s who were u n e m p l o y e d jobs were not

or blue-collar

s u f f i c i e n t l y i n t e l l i g e n t t o u n d e r s t a n d DNA e v i d e n c e -- w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n i n g a n y o f them r e g a r d i n g t h e i r i n t e l l i g e n c e l e v e l o r their ability t o u n d e r s t a n d DNA evidence. r e l i e d not only on t h e j u r o r intelligence. that

With respect on employment

t o J u r o r no. 38, t h e S t a t e on a m i s s p e l l e d that she

but also to

word

questionnaire

conclude

lacked

However, as t h e t r i a l a juror misspelled

court found i n i t s order, the f a c t a single word 89 on a j u r o r

questionnaire

CR-05-2371 fails of to e s t a b l i s h lack of i n t e l l i g e n c e , fact that Juror no. 38 especially in light on her juror

the

stated

questionnaire a bachelor's questionnaires

t h a t she h a d a t t e n d e d degree. reveals

c o l l e g e and h a d r e c e i v e d review of the j u r o r were not

I n a d d i t i o n , my that Caucasian

j u r o r s who

s t r u c k by t h e S t a t e a l s o m i s s p e l l e d one o r more words on t h e i r juror questionnaires. Specifically, Juror no. 5 m i s s p e l l e d and J u r o r no. 33 they a l l sat on

" p o l i c e , " J u r o r no. 24 m i s s p e l l e d " c h a n n e l , " misspelled "chamber" and "robbery," but

Sharp's j u r y . Despite these circumstances, the t r i a l court found this

r e a s o n t o be r a c e - n e u t r a l w i t h r e s p e c t coupled 110.)

t o J u r o r no. 38 "when (C. the

w i t h h e r employment h i s t o r y and h e r demeanor." However, as explained above, I fail to see

c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a p e r s o n ' s e x t e r n a l a p p e a r a n c e and demeanor and that person's intelligence court level. In a d d i t i o n , this

f i n d i n g by t h e t r i a l lack of support

i s quite t r o u b l i n g given and

(1) t h e trial on a 7

f o r i t i n the record,

(2) t h e

c o u r t ' s own q u e s t i o n i n g o f t h i s remand. The State's

reason during the hearing that Juror no. 38 had

assertion

"checkered"

employment

h i s t o r y and 90

had

worked

f o r only

CR-05-2371 months i n t h e l a s t 10 y e a r s i s d i r e c t l y r e f u t e d by t h e On h e r j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e , page of the questionnaire, of Defense three as J u r o r no. that a she record. first the

38 s t a t e d , on t h e had retired analyst trial. from in At

Department

program

2003, the

approximately hearing

years

before

Sharp's

on remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t , e v i d e n t l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the the

the v a l i d i t y of t h i s p r o f f e r e d reason, s p e c i f i c a l l y asked S t a t e i f i t was State no. aware t h a t J u r o r no. not, 38 was a r e t i r e e , and the fact that

i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was

despite

Juror page

38 c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d h e r r e t i r e d s t a t u s on t h e f i r s t juror questionnaire. t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t by

of the

Further,

the

State with regard striking jurors.

to i t s " l a c k - o f - s o p h i s t i c a t i o n " reason f o r Although " l a c k of the State struck 8 African-

A m e r i c a n s b a s e d on

s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , " e i t h e r because

t h e y were u n e m p l o y e d o r were e m p l o y e d i n m a n u a l - l a b o r o r b l u e collar jobs, the State did her not strike Juror no. 43, that a she

C a u c a s i a n who was See,

i n d i c a t e d on

juror questionnaire

a h o u s e w i f e and had b e e n u n e m p l o y e d f o r t h e l a s t 10 e.g., C a r t e r v. The State State, 603 So. to 2d 1137 justify

years. App.

(Ala. Crim. this

1992).

attempted 91

disparate

CR-05-2371 t r e a t m e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g on remand, e x p l a i n i n g t h a t i t d i d n o t s t r i k e J u r o r no. an e x p e r t w i t n e s s 43 b e c a u s e h e r h u s b a n d had and h e r two once t e s t i f i e d as

a d u l t c h i l d r e n were " e d u c a t e d , " 43's a n s w e r on and the her 43 and way of

a conclusion apparently juror questionnaire

b a s e d on J u r o r no. her son was an

that

engineer

d a u g h t e r was was married

a teacher. t o someone who two

However, t h e f a c t t h a t J u r o r no. had once b e e n an e x p e r t w i t n e s s were " e d u c a t e d " i n no 43 o r t h e a b i l i t y

t h a t she had

a d u l t c h i l d r e n who

shows t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l o f J u r o r no. J u r o r no. I 43 t o u n d e r s t a n d DNA that evidence.

recognize

disparate

treatment

evident

in

the

r e c o r d may,

i n some c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

be overcome by a

sufficient

e x p l a n a t i o n by t h e S t a t e .

F o r e x a m p l e , as t h e A l a b a m a Supreme So. 2d 409 ( A l a . 1996) :

C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n Ex p a r t e Brown, 686

"A p r o s e c u t o r can s t r i k e b a s e d on a m i s t a k e n b e l i e f , see T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 36, 42 ( A l a . C r . App. 1994); therefore, i t is logical that a prosecutor may a l s o d e c i d e , b a s e d on a m i s t a k e n b e l i e f , not to s t r i k e a veniremember. Because the d i s c r e p a n c y i n t h e way t h e s e two j u r o r s were t r e a t e d was adequately explained, we conclude that the s t r i k e o f J u r o r 19 was r a c e - n e u t r a l . " 686 So. 2d at 420. In for this not case, however, Juror I believe no. 43 the was

State's

explanation

striking

92

CR-05-2371 insufficient the is, to d i s p e l the d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t here. of the d i s p a r a t e conclusion that the Indeed, treatment there was

State's proffered explanation itself, support for the

disparate level was of

treatment. Juror no.

Despite 43's adult

i t s r e l i a n c e on

education she the in even - 74

c h i l d r e n to conclude that evidence,

sufficiently

intelligent 47 and not

t o u n d e r s t a n d DNA

S t a t e s t r u c k J u r o r s no. part, because they

74, b o t h A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s , sufficiently intelligent was

were

t h o u g h b o t h had a t l e a s t one J u r o r no. had a son 47 had

a d u l t c h i l d who was

"educated" J u r o r no.

a d a u g h t e r who

a n u r s e and technology. on

employed i n i n f o r m a t i o n although i t was at the

Finally, asserted that

hearing

remand

the

State were and

concerned with to

seating

j u r o r s who complex at

sufficiently technical trial, voir as DNA

intelligent evidence

understand was t o be

the

that

presented

Sharp's During evidence

the r e c o r d of v o i r

dire belies this

assertion.

dire,

the S t a t e q u e s t i o n e d

t h e v e n i r e a b o u t DNA

follows: "Now what we have h e r e i s f o r e n s i c s c i e n c e , r e a l life forensic science that you'll be confronted w i t h , and s p e c i f i c a l l y i t i s DNA e v i d e n c e . You'll h e a r some c u t t i n g edge t e c h n o l o g y on DNA evidence t h a t was r e c o v e r e d a t t h e s c e n e . And you a r e n o t 93

CR-05-2371 e x p e c t e d t o be a s c i e n t i s t o r t o become a s c i e n t i s t i f y o u ' r e c h o s e n on t h i s j u r y . And I'm n o t s a y i n g DNA i s i m p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d , b e c a u s e o b v i o u s l y i f I u n d e r s t a n d i t and [ t h e o t h e r p r o s e c u t o r ] can understand i t and these gentlemen [defense a t t o r n e y s ] can u n d e r s t a n d i t , t h e n , you know, you d o n ' t have t o be s u p e r s m a r t t o u n d e r s t a n d i t . B u t what I want t o a s k you i s , i s t h e r e anybody h e r e who t h i n k s t h e n a t u r e o f t h a t t e s t i m o n y , and by t h e n a t u r e I mean i t ' s s c i e n t i f i c , do you t h i n k t h a t i t w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t f o r you t o be a j u r o r i n t h a t , n o t b e c a u s e y o u ' r e n o t s m a r t enough, I'm n o t a s k i n g you t h a t , b u t b e c a u s e i t ' s j u s t s o m e t h i n g t h a t w o u l d b o r e you t o t e a r s and you d o n ' t t h i n k -- you d o n ' t t h i n k you c o u l d pay a t t e n t i o n t o i t , t o t h a t k i n d o f testimony?" (R. 243; e m p h a s i s added.) C o n t r a r y to the S t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n not concerned, at the

a t t h e h e a r i n g on remand, t h e S t a t e was time the i t q u e s t i o n e d and potential jurors s t r u c k the j u r y , to understand don't have

w i t h the a b i l i t y of DNA be evidence super to be to

the to

presented

because

"you

smart

understand i t . " For proffered these reasons, -I must Jurors conclude no. 27 that and the 11 State's were not

reason

that

sufficiently pretextual.

" s o p h i s t i c a t e d " t o u n d e r s t a n d DNA

e v i d e n c e -- i s

II. The State also proffered as a r e a s o n 94 for striking both

CR-05-2371 J u r o r no. 27 and J u r o r no. 11 t h a t e a c h may have had a prior no. a

conviction, 27 had

specifically

t h a t " [ i ] t appeared" t h a t J u r o r of m a r i j u a n a at

a prior

conviction for possession

t i m e when t h e p r o s e c u t o r related for cases


2 2

had b e e n w o r k i n g e x c l u s i v e l y on d r u g no. 11 had a prior on conviction the juror or

and a

that Juror

issuing

worthless

check.

However,

questionnaires, any and no.

p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s were a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e y ,

r e l a t i v e o r c l o s e f r i e n d , had e v e r b e e n a c c u s e d o f a c r i m e what t h e outcome, i f any, of t h a t a c c u s a t i o n was. Juror 11 and

27 s t a t e d "no" that her

i n answer t o the q u e s t i o n , brother but a had previously list State

and J u r o r no. been accused

indicated

c o n v i c t e d of a crime, ever been accused of

she crime.

d i d not The

h e r s e l f as never

having

questioned

these j u r o r s about t h e i r c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y or about the a l l e g e d discrepancy convictions remand b u t Court) noted and between (to which which are the its the not alleged State included records of the the prior on this As any

r e f e r r e d at i n the on the State

hearing

record before questionnaire. to engage in

j u r o r s ' responses "the failure of the

above,

The p r o s e c u t o r , however, d i d not a f f i r m a t i v e l y s t a t e w h e t h e r he had a c t u a l l y p r o s e c u t e d J u r o r no. 27.


22

95

CR-05-2371 meaningful evidence voir dire on a subject is a of alleged concern is for

that

the

explanation

sham and

a pretext 416

discrimination." C r i m . App. Instead 1992). of

H e m p h i l l v. S t a t e , 610

So. 2d 413,

(Ala.

c o n s i d e r i n g the

l a c k of q u e s t i o n i n g

here

as the

e v i d e n c e of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , however, the m a j o r i t y excuses State's prior failure to question these j u r o r s about t h e i r such

alleged

c o n v i c t i o n s because, i t r a t i o n a l i z e s , 27 and 11

questioning the

w o u l d have " e m b a r r a s s e d J u r o r s no. other effect veniremembers" on the and other because and "would

i n f r o n t of a

likely freely

have had answering

chilling dire in for . the

jurors'

voir

questions,

" [ i ] t could

even

have

resulted

p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s becoming e m b i t t e r e d toward the p r o s e c u t o r having embarrassed a f e l l o w veniremember." the majority's rationale fails The So. 3d a t of

However,

i n the

face

record before t h i s Court. was i n i t i a l l y questioned

r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t the

venire

as a w h o l e , b u t t h a t p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s t o t h e p a r t i e s and t h e the entire venire. the opportunity outside court The to the

were g i v e n t h e o p t i o n o f s p e a k i n g in p r i v a t e i n s t e a d of were any also

i n f r o n t of

parties question

specifically the venire 96

given

member o f

individually,

CR-05-2371 presence of wished. to the other potential jurors, about a n y t h i n g they

A number o f p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s v o l u n t a r i l y court

approached several request no. the

s p e a k w i t h t h e p a r t i e s and

i n p r i v a t e , and

a d d i t i o n a l j u r o r s were q u e s t i o n e d of the p a r t i e s . 11 were

i n d i v i d u a l l y at the 27 n o r

However, n e i t h e r J u r o r no. individually. Thus,

Juror to

questioned

contrary the

m a j o r i t y ' s c o n c l u s i o n , t h e S t a t e c l e a r l y had to question these j u r o r s about t h e i r prior

opportunity

criminal history the

and a b o u t t h e a l l e g e d d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e i r a n s w e r s on questionnaire and the State's alleged records

during

i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e w i t h o u t f e a r of embarrassing those j u r o r s in front of other potential jurors and without fear of

c r e a t i n g "a c h i l l i n g e f f e c t " on o t h e r p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s , b u t i t did not do so. Therefore, I cannot, as the majority jurors. question does,

excuse the

State's

f a i l u r e to question

these

The m a j o r i t y a l s o e x c u s e s t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o Jurors no. 27 and 11 about t h e i r alleged prior

convictions

because, i t says: "Once t h e State discovered that a discrepancy e x i s t e d b e t w e e n t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s o f c o n v i c t i o n and t h e sworn r e s p o n s e s p r o v i d e d by J u r o r s no. 27 and 11, i t w o u l d have b e e n a p p a r e n t t o t h e S t a t e t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 h a d n o t b e e n t r u t h f u l i n 97

CR-05-2371 answering t h e i r So. 3d at . juror questionnaires." This conclusion by the majority i s

problematic, First, its did order,

f o r several the majority

reasons. assumes, as d i d t h e t r i a l court i n

t h a t t h e S t a t e was aware t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 on t h e i r juror questionnaires that they had these

not s t a t e

prior

c o n v i c t i o n s a n d t h a t t h e S t a t e w o u l d have s t r u c k

j u r o r s f o r a l l e g e d l y not answering t r u t h f u l l y . State d i d n o t even mention the juror

However, t h e when

questionnaires

p r o v i d i n g t h i s r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11, much less indicate that i t was striking Jurors no. 27 a n d 11

because they had a l l e g e d l y n o t answered q u e s t i o n s Although

truthfully. questions

t h e f a i l u r e o f a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r t o answer

t r u t h f u l l y w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be a v a l i d r e a s o n f o r a p e r e m p t o r y strike, neither a trial court n o r an a p p e l l a t e court may

s u b s t i t u t e what w o u l d be a v a l i d n o n - p r e t e x t u a l peremptory s t r i k e questions provided prior its

reason f o r a

( t h e f a i l u r e o f a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r t o answer f o r the reason that was actually

truthfully) by t h e S t a t e

(the p o t e n t i a l j u r o r a l l e g e d l y had a

conviction).

" I f t h e s t a t e d r e a s o n does n o t h o l d up, not fade because a trial

pretextual

s i g n i f i c a n c e does 98

CR-05-2371 judge, not U.S. o r an appeals court, as can imagine a reason t h a t Miller-El v. Dretke, might 545

h a v e b e e n shown up 231, In 252 (2005) as

false."

(emphasis added). explained above, by the State 38 was on h e r wholly juror

addition,

unaware o f t h e questionnaire. J u r o r no. had

answers p r o v i d e d The State

J u r o r no. as

asserted

a reason f o r

striking and the

38 t h a t she had a " c h e c k e r e d " employment h i s t o r y

w o r k e d f o r o n l y 7 months i n t h e l a s t 10 y e a r s d e s p i t e juror questionnaire,

f a c t t h a t on t h e f i r s t page o f h e r no. 38 had as s t a t e d t h a t she had a program analyst

Juror

r e t i r e d from the Department of in 2003, approximately three at not fact I

Defense

years before the hearing

Sharp's t r i a l . on remand, t h e 38's

When q u e s t i o n e d State indicated

on t h i s t o p i c that i t was

aware o f J u r o r no. being clearly

s t a t u s as a r e t i r e e , d e s p i t e t h a t on her juror questionnaire.

stated

Thus,

c a n n o t assume, as t h e m a j o r i t y d o e s , t h a t t h e S t a t e was of the answers provided by Jurors no. 27 and 11 on

aware their Jurors

questionnaires 27 and 11

o r t h a t t h e S t a t e w o u l d have s t r u c k no. answering questions Jurors

f o r a l l e g e d l y not majority

truthfully. no. 27 and in 11 the

Second, the actually had

assumes t h a t

prior

convictions. 99

However,

nothing

CR-05-2371 record supports t h i s assumption. 27 and The only i n d i c a t i o n i n the was

r e c o r d t h a t J u r o r s no. the assertion by the

11 had

any p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s "[U]nsworn of counsel 725

prosecutor. and arguments So.

statements, are not

factual evidence." App. and

assertions,

Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , 911

2d 719,

(Ala. Civ. 27 the

2005) . no. 11

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r e s p o n s e s o f J u r o r s no. on their juror questionnaires, which, as

majority recognizes, neither had any trial

were " s w o r n " u n d e r o a t h , convictions. So.

indicated that 3d at that . a

prior

A l t h o u g h the

court noted g e n e r a l l y i n i t s order

p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e b a s e d on i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r has a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y i s r a c e n e u t r a l (a s t a t e m e n t w i t h w h i c h I do not disagree), the trial court 27 and n e v e r made a f i n d i n g o f 11 a c t u a l l y had any prior

f a c t as t o w h e t h e r J u r o r s no. convictions.

In a d d i t i o n , the a l l e g e d " r e c o r d s " on had

the State r e f e r r e d to 27 and 11

remand t o s u p p o r t i t s a s s e r t i o n t h a t J u r o r s no. prior c o n v i c t i o n s are not included i n the

record

before that the the

t h i s Court. criminal

A l t h o u g h I do n o t d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y a matter of p u b l i c record, and

c o n v i c t i o n s are

State, i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n for rehearing, 100

does a s s e r t t h a t

CR-05-2371 convictions alacourt.com, of Jurors no. 27 and that 11 can be found on

i t is well settled

"[a]n

appellate

court

c a n n o t c o n s i d e r m a t t e r s and C h i l d s v. S t a t e , 574 In a d d i t i o n , a l t h o u g h o f i t s own n.2 records,"


2 3

a l l e g a t i o n s o u t s i d e the 1024 ( A l a . C r i m . App. take

record." 1990) . notice 448 take

So.

2d 1023,

" [ t ] h i s C o u r t may Wilkerson v.

judicial So.

S t a t e , 70

3d 442, not

( A l a . C r i m . App.

2 0 1 1 ) , " [ g ] e n e r a l l y , a c o u r t may

j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of the r e c o r d s of another c o u r t . " v. Amerson, 741 So. 2d 437, 438 n.2 ( A l a . C i v . App.

Worthington 1999). As v.

t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d W h i t e , 55 So. 3d 1186 ( A l a . 2010):

i n G r e e n T r e e - A L LLC

" ' I t has l o n g b e e n our r u l e t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may not r e l y on facts o u t s i d e the r e c o r d . . . . Moreover, a court may n o t o r d i n a r i l y t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f the records of another c o u r t . See Belyeu v. Boman, 252 A l a . 371, 373, 41 So. 2d 290, 291 (1949) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a may n o t t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f the records of the t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s those r e c o r d s appear i n the c l e r k ' s r e c o r d or i n the records of the Supreme Court); W o r t h i n g t o n v. Amerson, 741 So. 2d 437, 438 n.2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) ("Generally, a c o u r t may n o t t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h e

I have s e a r c h e d t h i s C o u r t ' s r e c o r d s and have f o u n d no e v i d e n c e o f c o n v i c t i o n s f o r e i t h e r J u r o r no. 27 o r J u r o r no. 11.


2 3

101

CR-05-2371 records 55 So. (Ala. v. 3d a t 1193 2007) (See, of another c o u r t . " ) . ' " ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e J e t t , 5 So. J., concurring s p e c i a l l y ) ) . So. take i t may 2d 784, 786 3d 640, See 645-46

a l s o Nesby App. 'other for

City

o f Montgomery, 652 ("This Court cannot

(Ala. Crim. notice of

1994)

judicial

proceedings.'"). the t r i a l alleged occurred in

Although

have b e e n p e r m i s s i b l e

c o u r t t o have t a k e n "records" of

j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of the i f those

State's had

convictions

convictions

i n the Madison C i r c u i t Court,

t h e r e i s no

indication so.

the r e c o r d before i s no

t h i s Court t h a t the t r i a l indication i n the record

court d i d t h a t the on by

Indeed, t h e r e court State its even --

trial the in face

looked trial Rather, State's

at

the

alleged

records

relied

the

c o u r t d i d not the trial

mention these

"records" at

order. the

court merely accepted without considering

value

explanation

a l l the

relevant

circumstances. the State had the opportunity on no. remand 27 and to 11

Notably, provide

support

for i t s assertion that Jurors

had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s ; i t f a i l e d t o do s o .

When S h a r p p o i n t e d i n the 11 had record prior

out i n h i s w r i t t e n response the l a c k of support for the assertion that Jurors 102 no. 27 and

CR-05-2371 convictions established respond that to and no the the such fact prior that the juror the reply. stated the questionnaires State I did not

convictions,

argument i n i t s w r i t t e n that is not a prosecutor's reflected in

recognize for not 62

"[t]he a

fact juror

reason does

striking

record

n e c e s s a r i l y make t h a t r e a s o n p r e t e x t u a l . " So. 3d 1050, has 1060 held ( A l a . C r i m . App. that "[t]here is 2010). no

M a r t i n v. S t a t e , In a d d i t i o n ,

this a in not

Court

requirement

that

prosecutor e s t a b l i s h evidentiary every case, especially questioned where the

support for every s t r i k e the defendant of the has

specifically explanations So. 2d 80,

validity

prosecutor's State, 816

o r demanded f u r t h e r p r o o f . " 85 (Ala. the Crim. App. 1999)

H a l l v.

(emphasis in this

added). case - the in the

However,

under

s p e c i f i c circumstances

among o t h e r

things,

where S h a r p s p e c i f i c a l l y

questioned 27 and 11

v a l i d i t y of t h i s reason f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r s h i s w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e and record -I b e l i e v e i t was this reason i s not

no.

s u p p o r t e d by State

i n c u m b e n t on t h e to provide Ex p a r t e

to at l e a s t the 2d not

r e p l y t o Sharp's argument, i f not alleged prior convictions. 56, 58 ( A l a . 1992) Cf.,

evidence of So.

Thomas, 601 court

( h o l d i n g t h a t the t r i a l 103

erred i n

CR-05-2371 ordering listing jurors the State to provide and by to the defense the of document potential basis for in

misdemeanors that was used

traffic the

infractions as the

State

sole

striking

several African-American

veniremembers because,

r e f u s i n g t o do s o , t h e t r i a l

court merely "accept[ed] at

face for

value the S t a t e ' s o s t e n s i b l y f a c i a l l y n e u t r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s t h e use of i t s peremptory s t r i k e s , " which i s p r o h i b i t e d ) . I c a n n o t , as t h e m a j o r i t y d o e s , s i m p l y unsworn factual assertion

Therefore, that the

assume no.

prosecutor's

that

J u r o r s 27 and the

11 had p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s i s t r u e and assume t h a t Jurors no. 27 and 11 on their juror

sworn s t a t e m e n t s by are f a l s e .

questionnaires consider the

R a t h e r , a l l I am p e r m i t t e d i n the record before me,

t o do i s a l l of question

circumstances

w h i c h l e a d me J u r o r s no. evidence, conviction pretext

to conclude t h a t the S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e to 11 c a n n o t be e x c u s e d b u t must be not for conclusive striking by itself, no. that 27 and

27 and albeit reason

considered the 11 priorwas a

Jurors

for discrimination. evidence of discrimination the is the disparate prior11, as

Also

t r e a t m e n t d i s c l o s e d by c o n v i c t i o n reason. The

record with respect

to the 27 and

S t a t e s t r u c k J u r o r s no. 104

CR-05-2371 w e l l as J u r o r no. t h e y had strike 47, a l l African-Americans, i n p a r t , because not his of

a t l e a s t one p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n . Juror no. that 24, he 24 a had Caucasian, previously

Yet the S t a t e d i d who been stated on

questionnaire a s s a u l t , and explained 2001) :

convicted As this

J u r o r no.

s a t on S h a r p ' s j u r y . 813 So. 2d 1

Court App.

i n Y a n c e y v.

State,

(Ala. Crim.

"Though we have h e l d t h a t s t r i k i n g a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r because of a p r i o r c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y i s a r a c e - n e u t r a l reason, we have a l s o h e l d t h a t the f a i l u r e t o s t r i k e b o t h w h i t e s and b l a c k s b e c a u s e o f p r i o r c r i m i n a l records i s evidence of disparate treatment, i n v i o l a t i o n of Batson. See P o w e l l v. S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 590 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f ' d , 548 So. 2d 605 ( A l a . 1989). 'Such disparate treatment of otherwise s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d persons who happen t o be o f d i f f e r e n t r a c i a l b a c k g r o u n d s , would evidence d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t i n the S t a t e ' s use o f i t s s t r i k e s . ' B i s h o p v. S t a t e , 690 So. 2d 498, 500 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , on remand, 690 So. 2d 502 813 So. 2d ( A l a . C r i m . App. at 7. See 1996)." v. State, [Ms. CR-09-1013, 2010), Crim.

also Rice So. 3d 963 So. ,

November 5, and App.

2010] v.

( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 161, 167-69 (Ala.

Preachers 2006). The

State,

majority

concludes

that

there

was

no

disparate Jurors

t r e a t m e n t by t h e S t a t e i n t h i s r e g a r d b e c a u s e , i t s a y s , 105

CR-05-2371 no. 27 and 11 were n o t " s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d " t o J u r o r no. 24.

In r e a c h i n g no had

t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , t h e m a j o r i t y a g a i n assumes, w i t h record, t h a t J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 actually no. 24

support i n the prior

c o n v i c t i o n s and his prior no. 27

reasons t h a t because J u r o r on not his juror

disclosed while

conviction and 11 did

questionnaire alleged 24 for

Jurors

disclose their

p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s on t h e i r j u r o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , c a n n o t be "similarly s i t u a t e d " to Jurors As no. no. 27

J u r o r no. and 11

purposes f i n d i n g d i s p a r a t e treatment. h o w e v e r , I c a n n o t assume t h a t had prior c o n v i c t i o n s when t h e Likewise, the Jurors record

already 27 and 11

explained, actually that

does n o t that

support the

assumption.

record

reflects

alleged

f a i l u r e o f J u r o r s no. was nor

27 and 11 t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s

truthfully

n o t a b a s i s o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e f o r s t r i k i n g t h e s e j u r o r s was i t a basis offered by the State to explain the

disparate As argument support

treatment. above, his the State did not that no. respond the 27 to Sharp's did not

noted in the

written

response Jurors State

record 11

assertion In f a c t , any of

that the

and

had

prior

convictions. to respond to

failed in i t s written reply Rather, the State

Sharp's arguments. 106

CR-05-2371 made o n l y claimed a general d e n i a l of any discriminatory intent and

that

S h a r p ' s numerous a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g analysis. were b a s e d j u r o r and

disparate the

t r e a t m e n t were b a s e d on a f l a w e d State argued that of i t s strikes a particular

Specifically, on the

aggregate the State

characteristics

that

none o f

C a u c a s i a n j u r o r s i n t h i s c a s e who

were n o t s t r u c k by t h e

s h a r e d a l l t h e same a g g r e g a t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as t h e A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n j u r o r s who were s t r u c k and, The thus, that there could be

no d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t . picks no. 24 one

m a j o r i t y ' s v i e w i s s i m i l a r -- i t no. 27 and 11 and Juror

d i f f e r e n c e between J u r o r s concludes that the

and

jurors

were

not

"similarly State

s i t u a t e d " because of t h a t s i n g l e d i f f e r e n c e .

Both the

and t h e m a j o r i t y a p p e a r t o b e l i e v e t h a t as l o n g as t h e r e i s a t l e a s t one a l l e g e d d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a s t r u c k j u r o r and no a C a u c a s i a n j u r o r who treatment. was not African-American can be

struck, there

disparate

However, " t o p r o v e d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t i n j u r y s e l e c t i o n , it was i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o show t h a t t h e e x c l u d e d similarly situated to a white venire panelist in a l l 542, 559

potential juror F.3d two

respects." (6th

United

S t a t e s v. Indeed,

T o r r e s - R a m o s , 536 the 107 likelihood of

C i r . 2008).

potential

CR-05-2371 jurors sharing a l l the same characteristics at best, which and having such no a

differences

a t a l l i s remote,

i s why

v i e w has b e e n e x p r e s s l y r e j e c t e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court. As explained i n Dretke:

"None o f our cases announces a rule that no comparison of [ p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s ] i s p r o b a t i v e u n l e s s the situation of the i n d i v i d u a l s compared is i d e n t i c a l i n a l l r e s p e c t s , and t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o a c c e p t one. ... A p e r se r u l e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t w i n a B a t s o n c l a i m u n l e s s t h e r e i s an e x a c t l y i d e n t i c a l white j u r o r would leave Batson i n o p e r a b l e ; p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s are not products of a s e t of cookie cutters." 545 U.S. a t 247 n.6. The r e c o r d h e r e r e f l e c t s no 24 and J u r o r s no. significant that of

d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n J u r o r no. would render them n o t

27 and 11

"similarly

s i t u a t e d " f o r purposes

disparate-treatment The State's totality

analysis. of the circumstances of -including their the prior State's

l a c k of q u e s t i o n i n g

jurors regarding

c o n v i c t i o n s , the l a c k of support p r o f f e r t h a t J u r o r s no. d i s p a r a t e treatment who had prior 27 and

i n the r e c o r d f o r the 11 had prior and

c o n v i c t i o n s , the Caucasian j u r o r s State also

of A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n the no. and 108 fact 27 11

c o n v i c t i o n s , and Jurors 27

t h a t the 11 not the

proffered reason

for striking Jurors no.

and were

pretextual sufficiently

that

CR-05-2371 intelligent, as e x p l a i n e d above -- l e a v e s me no c h o i c e b u t t o Jurors

conclude that the p r i o r - c o n v i c t i o n reason f o r s t r i k i n g no. 27 a n d 11 was a l s o p r e t e x t u a l . III. The no. State a l s o p r o f f e r e d as a r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g

Juror

27 t h a t she h a d a n s w e r e d "no" on q u e s t i o n

79 on t h e j u r o r

q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d p r o f f e r e d as a r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r no. 11 t h a t she h a d n o t a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n 79 on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

and h a d n o t " f u l l y " a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n 74 on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . With respect to Juror no. 27, a l t h o u g h she d i d , i n f a c t ,

a n s w e r "no" t o q u e s t i o n fair case, i f she h a d h e a r d

79, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she c o u l d n o t be anything i n t h e media regarding i n fact, this heard voir

J u r o r no. 27 i n d i c a t e d t h a t she h a d n o t ,

a n y t h i n g i n t h e media r e g a r d i n g t h e case.

During general

d i r e o f t h e e n t i r e v e n i r e , J u r o r no. 27 d i d n o t r e s p o n d when a s k e d i f anyone h a d r e a d o r h e a r d a b o u t t h e c a s e t h r o u g h t h e media. questions On the juror questionnaire, the following s i x asked

-- q u e s t i o n s

68, 69, 70, 71, 78, a n d 79 -knowledge o f t h e case:

about t h e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s '

"68. Do you know a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e o t h e r t h a n what you have h e a r d i n C o u r t t o d a y ? Yes No I f yes, please e x p l a i n . 109

CR-05-2371 "69. case? "70. Have you d i s c u s s e d t h i s c a s e w i t h someone who c l a i m e d t o know s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e f a c t s of t h i s case? Yes No I f yes, please explain. "71. Have you h e a r d o f t h i s d e f e n d a n t o r a n y t h i n g a b o u t him a p a r t f r o m a n y t h i n g s t a t e d h e r e i n open c o u r t t o d a y ? Yes No I f y e s , what is the source of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , and please e x p l a i n how you o b t a i n e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . From what s o u r c e have you h e a r d a b o u t t h i s

"78. What, i f a n y t h i n g , media r e g a r d i n g t h i s case?

have you

heard

i n the

"79. I f you have h e a r d a n y t h i n g i n t h e m e d i a r e g a r d i n g t h i s c a s e , do you f e e l you can s t i l l be f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t o b o t h s i d e s ? Yes No I f no, J u r o r no. 69, "no" please e x p l a i n . " t o q u e s t i o n 68, "none" t o question 78.

27 a n s w e r e d "no"

t o q u e s t i o n s 70 and 71, and " n o t h i n g " t o q u e s t i o n 27 t h e n , q u e s t i o n 79 was

As a p p l i e d t o J u r o r no. than

n o t h i n g more no. that was

a h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n and, to question be fair and 79,

i n c o n t e x t , when J u r o r she was not in indicating case but

27 a n s w e r e d "no" she could not

impartial

the

indicating she had

t h a t i f the circumstances heard

were d i f f e r e n t ,

i.e., i f she

actually

about the case through

the media,

w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o be f a i r and i m p a r t i a l . 110

Thus, t h i s a n s w e r

CR-05-2371 by Juror no. 27 was no basis f o r the State's proffered could this

"concern." have

Indeed, a simple

question

during voir dire regarding

c l e a r e d up a n y " c o n c e r n " impartiality. However,

by t h e S t a t e the State to question

juror's Juror

d i d not question 79. Indeed, as

no. 27 a b o u t h e r a n s w e r

n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , J u r o r no. 27 was n o t q u e s t i o n e d at all. With respect during heard too, general

individually

t o J u r o r no. 11, s h e , t o o , d i d n o t r e s p o n d dire when a s k e d i f anyone had read or

voir

about t h e case through indicated

t h e media. that

In a d d i t i o n , she, she h a d n o t h e a r d 68, 70,

on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

anything and

about the case,

a n s w e r i n g "no" t o q u e s t i o n s

71, n o t a n s w e r i n g q u e s t i o n

69, a n d a n s w e r i n g " n o t h i n g " t o

q u e s t i o n 78.

B e c a u s e J u r o r no. 11 h a d h e a r d n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e

c a s e , t h e r e was no r e a s o n f o r h e r t o answer q u e s t i o n 79 w h i c h , as w i t h her. J u r o r no. 27, was p u r e l y h y p o t h e t i c a l as a p p l i e d t o Moreover, this as w i t h Juror no. 27, t h e S t a t e d i d not

question Finally, not

j u r o r about h e r f a i l u r e reflects

t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n 79. jurors d i d

the record

t h a t many p o t e n t i a l

answer q u e s t i o n

79 on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Of p a r t i c u l a r

importance here i s the f a c t

t h a t J u r o r s no. 24, 29, 33, 66, 111

CR-05-2371 68, and 79 -a l l C a u c a s i a n s -a l s o d i d not answer question struck


2 4

79 on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , b u t by the State, the and

none o f t h e s e

j u r o r s was

a l l were c h o s e n t o

s i t on

Sharp's j u r y . s a t on

Although jury

lone African-American answer q u e s t i o n

j u r o r who 79 on the

Sharp's

a l s o d i d not

questionnaire, i n the

t h i s does n o t d i m i n i s h t h e e v i d e n t d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t record. In a d d i t i o n , q u e s t i o n 74 on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

asked:

"Do you f e e l t h e a c c u s e d i s g u i l t y j u s t b e c a u s e h e / s h e i s i n t h e c o u r t r o o m t o d a y ? Yes No I f no, Juror no. 11 please explain." "no" to this question but did not

answered

e x p l a i n as r e q u e s t e d .

However, o f t h e 14 j u r o r s s e l e c t e d f o r or,

s e r v i c e , o n l y one p r o v i d e d an e x p l a n a t i o n t o t h i s q u e s t i o n as p h r a s e d by t h e p r o s e c u t o r , Although " f u l l y " answered t h i s

question. to t h i s

a l l 14 j u r o r s s e l e c t e d t o s e r v e a n s w e r e d "no" 11 -- 12 o f t h o s e answer, j u s t

q u e s t i o n -- as d i d J u r o r no. no 11, explanation and one

jurors provided like Juror no. that

at a l l f o r t h e i r

i n d i c a t e d "N/A."

Thus, i t w o u l d n o t

appear

J u r o r no. 79, a l t h o u g h i n i t i a l l y s i t t i n g j u r y , was r e p l a c e d by an a l t e r n a t e d u r i n g t r i a l . h o w e v e r , does n o t a l t e r t h e B a t s o n a n a l y s i s .


2 4

on S h a r p ' s This f a c t ,

112

CR-05-2371 t h e S t a t e was o v e r l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e f a i l u r e " f u l l y " answer q u e s t i o n at the hearing to on of j u r o r s to

74, d e s p i t e i t s c l a i m t o t h e c o n t r a r y "This court has who who condemned t h e share were the same

remand. white black

failure

strike as

venirepersons venirepersons

characteristics B i s h o p v. S t a t e ,

struck." 1995).

690 So. 2d 498, 500

( A l a . C r i m . App.

Moreover, the State d i d not q u e s t i o n the p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s , w i t h r e s p e c t

J u r o r no. 11, o r any o f 74.

to question

A c c o r d i n g l y , b a s e d on t h e d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t and l a c k o f questioning, and in light of the other pretextual reasons

p r o f f e r e d by t h e S t a t e discussed striking above, I

for striking conclude

J u r o r s no. 27 and 11, as that these reasons for

must

J u r o r s no. 27 a n d 11 were a l s o p r e t e x t u a l . IV.

Finally, striking and, Juror

the State no.

p r o f f e r e d as i t s " f i r s t " she was a Seventh Day

reason f o r Adventist

11 t h a t

t h u s , t h a t she c o u l d n o t work on S a t u r d a y s b e c a u s e o f h e r The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t d u r i n g group v o i r might

religious beliefs. dire, last

the t r i a l court informed the v e n i r e that the t r i a l

t h r o u g h S a t u r d a y o f t h a t week and a s k e d i f anyone h a d a

p r o b l e m w i t h w o r k i n g S a t u r d a y and, i f s o , t o w r i t e t h a t on t h e 113

CR-05-2371 questionnaires inform did t h e y were g o i n g during t o complete t h a t afternoon dire. Juror or

the court

individual voir

no. 11

n o t s t a t e on h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t she h a d a p r o b l e m w i t h on Saturday, although she did indicate on the

working

q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t she was a S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t . also d i d not question on S a t u r d a y .


2 5

The S t a t e t o work solely

J u r o r no. 11 a b o u t h e r a b i l i t y

R a t h e r , t h e S t a t e m e r e l y assumed, b a s e d

on r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n , Saturday. religious subscribes The f a c t , affiliation

t h a t J u r o r no. 11 c o u l d n o t work on a certain he or she

however, t h a t a p e r s o n h o l d s does not establish that

t o a l l of the b e l i e f s of that r e l i g i o n .

As n o t e d

p r e v i o u s l y , a g r o u p b i a s where t h e t r a i t o f c o n c e r n -- i n t h i s case, the i n a b i l i t y t o work on S a t u r d a y -- was n o t shown t o

apply to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r j u r o r i s evidence that the p r o f f e r e d reason for striking Juror no. 11 i s a sham o r p r e t e x t f o r

As the m a j o r i t y c o r r e c t l y notes, a t o t a l o f three j u r o r s indicated on their questionnaires that their religion g e n e r a l l y p r o h i b i t e d w o r k i n g on S a t u r d a y s -- J u r o r no. 11 and J u r o r no. 39 i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t s , and J u r o r no. 52 i n d i c a t e d t h a t she was a S a b b a t h K e e p e r - and t h e S t a t e s t r u c k a l l t h r e e o f t h o s e j u r o r s . However, o n l y one o f t h o s e j u r o r s , J u r o r no. 39, a c t u a l l y i n d i c a t e d , d u r i n g individual voir dire, that h i s religious beliefs would p r o h i b i t h i m f r o m s e r v i n g as a j u r o r on S a t u r d a y .
25

114

CR-05-2371 discrimination. In juror, addition, the State's lack of questioning of this

w h i c h c o u l d have e a s i l y

c l e a r e d up any c o n c e r n as t o i s also evidence of and i n l i g h t o f

w h e t h e r t h i s j u r o r c o u l d work on S a t u r d a y , discrimination. Therefore,

f o r these reasons,

the S t a t e ' s other p r e t e x t u a l reasons p r o f f e r e d f o r the s t r i k e o f J u r o r no. 11, as e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , I must c o n c l u d e t h a t reason f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r no. 11 was a l s o p r e t e x t u a l . V. My striking conclusion Juror no. that 27 a l l of the no. State's reasons for this

and J u r o r

11 were p r e t e x t u a l i s

b u t t r e s s e d by t h e q u e s t i o n a b l e r e a s o n s t h e S t a t e p r o f f e r e d f o r its strikes of other African-American jurors. Having

d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e a s o n s f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r s no. 27 and 11 were pretextual, strikes. juror other I would Once closely scrutinize reasons the State's a

remaining potential striking greater (Ala. App.

the State's t o be

for striking

are found jurors

invalid, and Bird,

the reasons f o r are subject to

become

suspect

scrutiny.

See, e.g., Ex p a r t e

594 So. 2d 676 ( A l a . Crim. i n Ex

1 9 9 1 ) , a n d Maddox v. S t a t e , 708 So. 2d 220 1997) . As the Alabama Supreme 115 Court

explained

CR-05-2371 parte Bird: " A l t h o u g h one u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l a n d a new t r i a l , we t a k e this o p p o r t u n i t y t o a c c e n t u a t e t h e s p e c i f i c weaknesses of t h e S t a t e ' s e x p l a n a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g a number o f i t s challenges. I n d o i n g s o , we p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e State's f a i l u r e t o a r t i c u l a t e a l e g i t i m a t e reason f o r i t s c h a l l e n g e o f v e n i r e m e m b e r number 26 e x p o s e s i t s r a t i o n a l e f o r subsequent s t r i k e s t o g r e a t e r scrutiny. See S t a t e v . A n t w i n e , 743 S.W.2d 5 1 , 64 (Mo. 1987) . Thus, e v e n e x p l a n a t i o n s t h a t w o u l d o r d i n a r i l y p a s s m u s t e r become s u s p e c t where one o r more o f t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y f a n c i f u l or w h i m s i c a l . " 594 So. 2d a t 683 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . One o f t h e r e a s o n s t h e S t a t e p r o f f e r e d f o r s t r i k i n g no. 39 was t h a t he h a d a f r i e n d who was a p a s t o r Juror

and e i t h e r

was h i m s e l f o r knew someone i n v o l v e d i n p r i s o n m i n i s t r i e s a n d one o f t h e r e a s o n s t h e S t a t e p r o f f e r e d f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r no. t o be a m i n i s t e r a n d " t h a t was (RTR, R. 79, a on h i s visiting

52 was t h a t she was s t u d y i n g

n o t t h e k i n d o f j u r o r [ t h e S t a t e was] l o o k i n g f o r . " 13.) However, t h e S t a t e who was that a he d i d not s t r i k e and who Juror

no.

Caucasian,

minister

indicated

questionnaire

had p r e v i o u s l y

volunteered

inmates i n p r i s o n . I n a d d i t i o n , one o f t h e r e a s o n s t h e S t a t e p r o f f e r e d f o r striking J u r o r no. 47, an A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n , 116 was t h a t s h e h a d

CR-05-2371 answered on t h e j u r o r questionnaire that she b e l i e v e d t h e

S t a t e s h o u l d have t o p r o v e i t s c a s e b e y o n d a l l d o u b t a n d t h a t a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d have t o t e s t i f y on h i s o r h e r own behalf. However, when p r o f f e r i n g t h i s reason a t the hearing j u r o r s , some o f Indeed, t h e

on remand, t h e S t a t e a d m i t t e d

t h a t many o t h e r

whom s a t on S h a r p ' s j u r y , h a d a n s w e r e d s i m i l a r l y . record reflects that h a l f of the p e t i t

j u r o r s had answered Jurors no. 5, 29,

similarly 44,

t o J u r o r no. 47.

Specifically,

46, 59, a n d 70 -- a l l C a u c a s i a n s who s a t on S h a r p ' s j u r y on t h e i r have questionnaires to prove Juror that they beyond believed the a l l doubt. on the Juror

-- a n s w e r e d State should

i t s case no. 59

Additionally, questionnaire no.

Caucasian

answered

-- e x a c t l y l i k e

struck African-American

47 -- t h a t he b e l i e v e d a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d have t o

t e s t i f y on h i s o r h e r own b e h a l f . Finally, no. one o f t h e r e a s o n s p r o f f e r e d f o r s t r i k i n g Juror

74 was t h a t she h a d a s o n who h a d b e e n t h e v i c t i m o f two a n d t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n no a r r e s t o r c o n v i c t i o n f o r those crimes. Similarly, one of the reasons

robberies either of

p r o f f e r e d f o r s t r i k i n g J u r o r no. 55 was t h a t she h a d a s o n who had been t h e v i c t i m o f a t t e m p t e d murder and t h a t 117 there had

CR-05-2371 been no a r r e s t State or conviction Juror f o r that crime. However, t h e

d i d not s t r i k e

no. 66 -- a C a u c a s i a n who s a t on

S h a r p ' s j u r y -- who i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d b e e n t h e v i c t i m o f assault resulted. and, a l t h o u g h Likewise, an arrest was made, no conviction

the State

d i d n o t s t r i k e J u r o r no. 68 -

a C a u c a s i a n who a l s o the victim of date

s a t on S h a r p ' s j u r y -- a n d who h a d been rape and t h e r e with that had been crime. no a r r e s t or

conviction several

i n connection

Additionally,

other Caucasian been victims

j u r o r s who s a t on S h a r p ' s j u r y h a d , of v i o l e n t crimes s i m i l a r to that crimes

themselves,

endured by J u r o r

no. 74's s o n , a l t h o u g h a l l o f t h o s e and c o n v i c t i o n s . difficulty facing

resulted i n arrests I recognize

the inherent

prosecutors

who have t o p r o v i d e r e a s o n s f o r p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s y e a r s , a n d hundreds recognize legitimate often of t r i a l s , that after those s t r i k e s were made. of jurors may I also a

disparate

treatment

have

explanation. on instinct.

Peremptory s t r i k e s a r e , a f t e r a l l , However, as the United States

based

Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d

i n Dretke:

"[W]hen i l l e g i t i m a t e g r o u n d s l i k e r a c e a r e i n i s s u e , a p r o s e c u t o r s i m p l y h a s g o t t o s t a t e h i s r e a s o n s as b e s t he c a n a n d s t a n d o r f a l l on t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y o f 118

CR-05-2371 t h e r e a s o n s he g i v e s . A B a t s o n c h a l l e n g e does n o t c a l l f o r a mere e x e r c i s e i n t h i n k i n g up any r a t i o n a l basis. I f t h e s t a t e d r e a s o n does n o t h o l d up, i t s p r e t e x t u a l s i g n i f i c a n c e does n o t f a d e b e c a u s e a t r i a l j u d g e , o r an a p p e a l s c o u r t , c a n i m a g i n e a r e a s o n t h a t m i g h t n o t have b e e n shown up as f a l s e . " 545 U.S. a t 252. Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s reviewing the record, examining State for i t s strikes
2 6

case,

after

thoroughly

t h e reasons p r o f f e r e d by t h e made b y Sharp in

and t h e arguments

response, no

a n d c o n s i d e r i n g a l l r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , I have but to conclude that the State exercised i t s

choice

peremptory Americans, Sharp

s t r i k e s i n a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner a g a i n s t A f r i c a n i n v i o l a t i o n of Batson. t o a new trial, Therefore, I believe a n d I must that

i s entitled

respectfully

dissent. Welch, J . , concurs.

S e e Maddox v . S t a t e , 708 So. 2d 220, 223 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) ( n o t i n g t h a t " [ i ] n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e a s o n s given by t h e S t a t e f o r i t s peremptory challenges are p r e t e x t u a l , t h e ... c o u r t h a s a d u t y t o c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by b o t h t h e S t a t e and by t h e d e f e n s e i n r e b u t t a l " ) .
26

119

You might also like