U.S. v. Battle, 86-2389
| Citation | 836 F.2d 1084 |
| Decision Date | 08 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2389,86-2389 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Russell Dereck BATTLE, a/k/a Buck, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Stephen Gilmore, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Richard Poehing, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Russell Dereck Battle appeals from his judgment of conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Battle was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B) () and sentenced to ten years imprisonment to be followed by a special parole term of three years. Battle challenges the admissibility of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. In addition, Battle maintains the government improperly exercised its peremptory challenges in selection of the jury. At this time we need only address the peremptory challenges exercised by the government. 1
Battle, who is black, maintains that the government unconstitutionally used its peremptory challenges to substantially reduce the number of blacks available to sit on the jury. To establish a constitutional violation, a defendant must first establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in selection of the jury panel. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). "[A] defendant may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination * * * solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant's trial." Id. at 96. To establish a prima facie case, the defendant must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to exclude members of his race from the jury. He then "must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used [his peremptory] practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race." Id. In determining whether a defendant has established the requisite showing of purposeful discrimination, the trial court should consider all relevant circumstances including, but not limited to, a pattern of strikes against black jurors, as well as the prosecutor's questions and statements during voir dire. Id. at 96-97. If the defendant establishes a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to articulate a neutral explanation for challenging the black veniremen. While the prosecutor's explanation need not rise to the level necessary to justify a challenge for cause, a mere affirmation of good faith is insufficient. Id. at 97.
In the instant case, the record demonstrates that there were seven blacks on the original jury panel. The government exercised five of its six (83%) allowable peremptory challenges to strike five of the seven (71%) blacks from the jury panel. The voir dire revealed that two of the five were involved in some type of criminal or civil law suit. Each of these jurors stated it would not influence their judgment on the case. Three of the five jurors testified they or their families were victims of crimes.
After Battle objected to the government's use of its peremptory challenges, the trial court asked the government if it would like to state on the record the reasons why it so exercised its challenges. The government replied that it did not believe it was under any requirement to make a record. The trial court agreed, stating that it understood Batson to provide a permissive, rather than a mandatory procedure for articulating the reasons for the strikes. 2
After the government refused to provide the reasons for striking the black jurors the trial court thereafter found there was no discrimination. 3 We believe this finding was improper in view of the standards set forth in Batson. In our view, Battle did establish sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Moreover, like the trial court, we believe that the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Batson are applicable in this case. However, unlike the trial court, we conclude that in circumstances such as these, Batson requires that the government articulate racially neutral reasons for so exercising its peremptory challenges. The choice is not discretionary.
Because the government failed to articulate the reasons for its peremptory strikes in this case, we remand to the district court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Johnson
...306-307 [finding an inference of discrimination, despite the presence of five African Americans on the jury panel]; U.S. v. Battle (8th Cir. 1987) 836 F.2d 1084, 1086 [finding an inference of discrimination, despite the presence of two African Americans on the panel; "the striking of a sing......
-
People v. Knight
...failure to exclude one member of a protected class is sufficient to insulate the unlawful exclusion of others.); United States v. Battle, 836 F.2d 1084, 1086 (C.A.8, 1987) ("We emphasize that under Batson, the striking of a single black juror for racial reasons violates the equal protection......
-
Simon v. State
...facts and circumstances may constitute an inference of prosecutorial discrimination in the selection process."); United States v. Battle, 836 F.2d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir.1987) ("the striking of a single black juror for racial reasons violates the equal protection clause, even though other blac......
-
People v. Johnson
...other black jurors are seated, and even when there are valid reasons for the striking of some black jurors." (United States v. Battle (8th Cir.1987) 836 F.2d 1084, 1086, and cases cited.) On the record before us, the People have not met this standard of proof. These errors are prejudicial p......