 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gomez10/13/2005
invaded the province of the parties by initiating the strike of venireperson 21, eliciting defense counsel's response, and then giving reasons justifying the strike before the state had the opportunity to examine venireperson 21 and before the state actually struck venireperson 21.
A review of the record before us strongly suggests that, if properly made, a peremptory strike by the state would have withstood a Batson challenge not only at trial but on appeal. But we neither can undo the procedural errors below nor excise them from the whole of the trial. We have said that "if the members of a petit jury are selected on improper criteria * * *, the error has undermined the basic 'structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itself, and is not amenable to harmless error review.'" Reiners, 664 N.W.2d at 835 (citing State v. Logan, 535 N.W.2d 320, 324 (Minn. 1995) (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 (1986))). Although this case only indirectly involves the selection of jurors based on improper criteria, it does involve the exclusion of a prospective juror based on serious procedural errors by the trial court. These procedural errors also undermine the basic "structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itself and not amenable to harmless error review." Moreover, they erode the public's trust and confidence in our judicial system. Therefore, we reverse Gomez's conviction and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
ANDERSON, G. Barry, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
DISSENT
ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The majority reverses and remands for a new trial on the ground that the trial court invaded the province of the parties when venireperson 21 was struck. The majority then concludes that when the court struck the venireperson, it committed a structural error that undermined the integrity of the court. I disagree. When the majority concludes that the court acted as an advocate, it ignores a basic principle that underlies a Batson challenge--when it comes to protecting the rights of the venireperson, the court is a direct and indispensable participant. Moreover, I conclude that the majority's analysis of what the court actually did is flawed. Therefore, I would affirm the conviction.
I begin by noting my agreement with the majority's conclusion that it can be inferred from the trial court's questions following defense counsel's acceptance of venireperson 21 that the venireperson was a member of a protected racial group. Thus, I, like the majority, am satisfied that the circumstances of this case raise an inference of a race-based challenge subject to a Batson analysis. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Having established the first step of a Batson analysis, I will next supplement the majority opinion by reviewing certain relevant facts.
Supplemental Facts
Defense counsel began the voir dire of venireperson 21. After responding to some preliminary questions, the venireperson revealed that during the period of time when she was between seven and ten years old, her father was accused of sexually abusing her half-sister. Her father was charged with sexual abuse, tried, found guilty, and served approximately one and one-half years in Stillwater Prison. The venireperson stated that she testified as a defense witness at her father's trial. She went on to say that she thought the outcome of her father's trial was wrong and she did not believe that there was enough evidence to convict her father. But she stated that she do
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|