 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gomez10/13/2005
ited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986). That prohibition is intended to protect the rights of individual citizens not to be excluded from jury service as well as the rights of the criminally accused. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 406 (1991). Courts have an affirmative duty to enforce the strong statutory and constitutional policies embodied in the prohibition on discrimination in the selection of jurors. Id. at 416. That duty includes the obligation to act and to act sua sponte when necessary to prevent discrimination. Thus, when it comes to protecting the rights of the venireperson, the court is a direct and indispensable participant in the process.
Trial courts are required to follow a three-step analysis in evaluating a Batson objection to a peremptory challenge: (1) a defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race, (2) the burden then shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question, and (3) the trial court must determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-59 (1991); see also Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 6a(3). Because the existence of racial discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge is a factual determination, we generally give deference to the trial court's rulings on Batson objections unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Reiners, 664 N.W.2d 826, 830-31 (Minn. 2003).
Gomez contends that the trial court erred when it denied his Batson objection to the state's strike of venireperson 21. Based on the parties' discussion of the Batson issue during voir dire, we assume that venireperson 21 is a person of color, although her race is not on the record. During voir dire, it was revealed that venireperson 21's father had been tried and convicted of sexually abusing venireperson 21's half-sister about 15 years earlier when venireperson 21 was a young child. Venireperson 21 testified at her father's trial and felt "a little intimidated." Upon his release from prison, venireperson 21's father returned home to live with his family. Venireperson 21 thought her father was wrongfully convicted, but she did not recall any bias against her father at the trial. After the defense accepted venireperson 21 and before the state had the opportunity to examine her, the trial court excused venireperson 21 from the room indicating that she should take her belongings with her because she might not be coming back. After venireperson 21 left the room, the court, on its own initiative, asked defense counsel, "If the State exercises or offers to challenge, are you going to contend it's racially motivated?" The following discussion then ensued:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, for the record, judge.
THE COURT: On what basis?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: On the basis that as I understand the concern that the State has is that she, this woman believes that her father was unjustly convicted. That goes to the same issue of, does the court system always work and we've had several other jurors who have said that is it not perfect but it works okay sometimes. She has said she can be a fair juror, she has said that there will not be a connection to this case and her father's case.
THE COURT: Except she, it's not quite the same, it doesn't always work when it's your father and you were a witness.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I understand that, but this is a position that I have judged, that I believe that her answers were not any due cause and were not
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.
|
|