Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 .
CR-05-2371
i s w i t h d r a w n , and t h e
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.
2008) Sharp's
remand, v. , Supreme
sentence. So. 3d
Sharp
State,
( A l a . Crim. Court,
("Sharp
Alabama
after
granting Court's of of
petition,
reversed this
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.
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
c o u r t to conduct a
against
[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
striking
veniremembers. reasons
his
Sharp argued t h a t
State's
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 .
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
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.
( 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
A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , i n an o r d e r
dated October
18,
instructions
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
the
trial
court's Batson
order,
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
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
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
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."
" 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
"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
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
16
"[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
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
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
"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
" 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
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
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
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
"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
322, 328-29
t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d
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
e.g.,
Ex p a r t e
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
strike, cause,
to the l e v e l facial
the
validity
prosecutor's
explanation.
D o s t e r v. S t a t e , 72 So. 3d 50, 73
29
" 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
prospective had on
a r e l a t i v e who
questioning;
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
opportunity to offer
indicating
Batson
"[t]he
at a l l times
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.
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 ,
factual
See M i l l e r - E l
v. C o c k r e l l ,
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
court's ultimate ruling--that the the prosecutor's completing race-neutral step three of explanation
found
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
case.'"
Ex p a r t e B i r d ,
S t a t e , 257 other in
Ga.
325,
words,
circumstances
must
considered
reviewing
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
"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
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) .
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
"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
"'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
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
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
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
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
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,
65,
trial
c o u r t and the
attacks those
prosecution's
offered of the be
prosecution's v i e w e d as law,
a sham o r
case
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
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
Sharp p o i n t e d jurors
Caucasian or
who
"intelligence"
c o u r t , however, d i d not
rely
solely
Rather,
as
Martin
permits,
the
trial
court
c i t e d other
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
(2) t h a t J u r o r no.
a prior strong
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
v e r d i c t f o r the
a l s o had
relative
demeanor
veniremembers,
observed Juror
i t had
observed
J u r o r no.
t o impose t h e returned a
unfavorable
State 74's
case.
In a d d i t i o n ,
been a v i c t i m of a c r i m e
remove J u r o r
74.
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
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
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
J u r o r no. 27's c a s e .
prosecutor's three
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
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
(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.
("Neither failure
mistaken b e l i e f
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,
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);
for striking
S i l e r v. that
State, a
(providing
prospective
juror
pursuant to the
prosecutor's
belief
that
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
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
struck
w r i t t e n bad
that
convicted
disagree. to
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 ) .
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
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
a crime.
( 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
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
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
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
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
claims
the State
failed
t o engage i n their
meaningful v o i r
dire with
Jurors
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
C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , t h e t r i a l
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
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
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
54
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
' [ 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
g i v e s a r e a s o n w h i c h may be a
(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
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
t o become m i n i s t e r s ,
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
"almost
she h a d a b r o t h e r
Adventist
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
from
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
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
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
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
that e i t h e r they
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
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
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
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
clear error
Sharp's
B a t s o n c l a i m as t o J u r o r no.
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
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
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
MARCH
23,
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
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
, 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
"[had] 'plain
f o u n d no error'
Id.
So. 3d a t
n.3
(Murdock,
J., concurring
CR-05-2371 cited with several which I policy also reasons agree. i n support of h i s Those policy conclusion, bear
reasons
" 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
e x t e n t i t c o u l d be
i n o t h e r cases because,
main
prosecution strikes of
for i t s former
individual
based n.4
upon t h a t (Murdock,
including
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
"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
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
In that b r i e f , violation
Sharp had
a Batson
occurred. represented
66
--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
" 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
"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
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 .
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
p r o c e s s must be f o l l o w e d .
" 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,
raised
discrimination.
Ex p a r t e
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
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
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
relevant
considered
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
Although Snyder,
supra,
proposition
that
a l l relevant
circumstances, State
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
are n o n - p r e t e x t u a l .
cases
must be
considered.
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
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
as t o w h e t h e r any o f 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
State rule
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
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)
" [ 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]
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
(quoting
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
( 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
J a c k s o n v.
However,
contrary
belief by
does U.S.
preclude finding
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. 1 9 8 9 ) ,
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
jury.
produce
this
under
plain-error
79
-- t h a t
the record
indicated that
some
record were
indicated struck
African-American
jurors
shared
heterogenous.
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
she l a c k e d
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
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
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
answer q u e s t i o n
conviction f o r i s s u i n g a worthless
first both
sophistication,"
alleged prior
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
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
technical
evidence. was
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 ...
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
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
i t concludes, proffered
the
d i d not
that
reason
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , but offered
"cited
striking"
several jurors.
Although I
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
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
i sa particularly
from j u r i e s . " ) .
the reason i s
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
the i n t e l l i g e n c e
the record by
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
"[b]ased on t h i s
responses review
However,
of the proceedings
reflects
call. the
She a n s w e r e d no q u e s t i o n s
voir dire. as to
one's
occupation,
status
establish former
circuit
concurrence, circuit
judge
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
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
-- w h i c h
and t h a t
intellectual
contrary to the t r i a l
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
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 ,
Although dire,
she was f o r me t o
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
those Juror
knowledge trial
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
u n d e r s t a n d DNA
made no a t t e m p t
level
or t h e i r
to understand
evidence.
Jurors
27 was
J u r o r no.
ex-husband's
this on
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
n o t shown t o not a
s t r i k e i s a sham o r p r e t e x t
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
part,
because
percent
based,
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
strikes
forthis
reason.
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
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
but also to
word
questionnaire
conclude
lacked
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
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
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.)
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
(1) t h e trial on a 7
f o r i t i n the record,
(2) t h e
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
Department
program
2003, the
approximately hearing
years
before
Sharp's
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
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
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.
1992).
attempted 91
disparate
that
engineer
t h a t she had
a d u l t c h i l d r e n who
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 .
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
i t s r e l i a n c e on
sufficiently
t o u n d e r s t a n d DNA
were
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
hearing
remand
the
concerned with to
seating
j u r o r s who complex at
intelligent evidence
understand was t o be
the
that
presented
the r e c o r d of v o i r
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
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.
e v i d e n c e -- i s
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
and a
that Juror
issuing
worthless
check.
However,
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 ,
indicated
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
hearing
above,
95
that
the
explanation
sham and
a pretext 416
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
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
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
i n f r o n t of
parties question
given
member o f
individually,
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
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
i n d i v i d u a l l y at the 27 n o r
Juror to
questioned
contrary the
opportunity
during
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
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
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
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
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
reason f o r a
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).
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
false."
addition,
J u r o r no. as
asserted
a reason f o r
Juror
Defense
on t h i s t o p i c that i t was
stated
Thus,
questionnaires 27 and 11
f o r a l l e g e d l y not majority
assumes t h a t
prior
convictions. 99
However,
nothing
11 had
assertions,
Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , 911
2d 719,
2005) . no. 11
prior
A l t h o u g h the
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.
record
t h i s Court. criminal
c o n v i c t i o n s are
does a s s e r t t h a t
i t is well settled
"[a]n
appellate
court
So.
2d 1023,
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.
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
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
City
1994)
judicial
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
t h e r e i s no
indication so.
the r e c o r d before i s no
court d i d t h a t the on by
at
the
alleged
records
relied
the
mention these
"records" at
order. the
value
explanation
a l l the
relevant
Notably, provide
support
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 .
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,
"[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
validity
H a l l v.
(emphasis in this
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
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
evidence of So.
( 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
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
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
assume no.
prosecutor's
that
J u r o r s 27 and the
sworn s t a t e m e n t s by are f a l s e .
t o do i s a l l of question
circumstances
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
Jurors
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
to the 27 and
S t a t e s t r u c k J u r o r s no. 104
convicted As this
J u r o r no.
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.
2010] v.
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
In r e a c h i n g no had
disclosed while
Jurors
disclose their
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
does n o t that
support the
assumption.
record
reflects
alleged
27 and 11 t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s
truthfully
treatment. above, his the State did not that no. respond the 27 to Sharp's did not
noted in the
written
record 11
assertion In f a c t , any of
that the
and
had
prior
convictions. to respond to
that
disparate the
Specifically, on the
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
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
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
respects." (6th
United
S t a t e s v. Indeed,
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
"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
27 and 11
"similarly
s i t u a t e d " f o r purposes
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 , and Jurors 27
proffered reason
and were
pretextual sufficiently
that
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
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
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
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"
As a p p l i e d t o J u r o r no. than
impartial
the
were d i f f e r e n t ,
i.e., i f she
actually
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
juror's Juror
no. 27 a b o u t h e r a n s w e r
individually
voir
t h e media. that
on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e
anything and
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
on S h a r p ' s This f a c t ,
112
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
failure
strike as
venirepersons venirepersons
characteristics B i s h o p v. S t a t e ,
struck." 1995).
( A l a . C r i m . App.
to question
must
reason f o r Adventist
11 t h a t
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
working
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
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
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
w h i c h c o u l d have e a s i l y
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
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
the State's t o be
for striking
become
suspect
scrutiny.
See, e.g., Ex p a r t e
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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,
themselves,
endured by J u r o r
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.
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
and t h e arguments
response, no
choice
i s entitled
respectfully
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