Attorneys may not justify a peremptory strike by indicating that they intend to replace the person with another juror of the same race, because that is not race- neutral.
Ray-Simmons v. State, 2016 BL 49211, Md., No. 28, 2/22/16
A prosecutor attempted to justify a peremptory strike of a black man by saying that she planned to replace him with "another black male" from the other prospective jurors. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that this violated Batson because that rationalization was neither race- nor gender-neutral.
The court indicated that the prosecutor's suggestion that minority jurors are interchangeable saved the defense from having to make out the prima facie case of discrimination. The court said that "[a] desire to replace a juror with another unspecified member of the panel does not explain in any way, race-neutral or otherwise, the prosecutor's reasons to strike that particular juror."
Because the original case happened four years ago, and the circumstances surrounding the challenge could not be reconstructed easily, the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial.
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/RaySimmons_v_State_No_28_2016_BL_49211_Md_Feb_22_2016_Court_Opini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.