OCTOBER D87 - Voice For The Defense Online

nature of the case, courts have shown awillingfies to find an inference of impropermotives in the exercise of peremptorychallenges in cases where the victimwas of a different race than that of thedefendant. Where the murder victim waswhite and the defendant black, an Oklahomaappellate court found discriminationwhen the prosecutor struck three hIacks.58In State v. GiIrn~re,~~ interestingly, thetrial court found an inference of discriminationrelying in part upon the factthat defendant and his counsel were blackand the prosecutor was white.60comments of prosecutorThe best tool for creating an inferenceis when trial counsel uses peremptories tostrike minority members and candidly admitsdoing s ~.~' In one of the companioncases to Gtifith v. Kent~cky,~? the prosecutorstated to the trial court clerk, "Wewould like to have as few black jurors aspossible."63 Less blatant references, however,may also raise an inference. In a casewhere the defendant was complaining ofexclusion of French-Canadians, for example,the prosecutor emphasized the importanceof where prospective jurors wereborn and then struck a juror wearing amaple leaf ph6* The dissenting judge inCommonwealth v. McKendrick" wouldhave held that the defendant raised aninference of discrimination when the prosecutorin closing argument made referencesto murder in "South Philadelphia","ghetto" and "projects".66conduct of voir direHearkening to the specific language ofBatson, many courts have looked to theprosecutor's conduct of voir dire for evidenceof the prima facie case. Cases inwhich the prosecutor conducted a desultoryvoir dire, resulting in little information thatwould justify a peremptory on a basis otherthan race, have been held to raise an inference.In Garza v. State,Q the courtfound a prima facie case when there wasnothing distinctive about the voir direwhich would indicate the rationale behindtheprosecutor's Certainly, whereno questions are asked of black, prospectivejurors, a court's conclusions regardingthe presence of discrimination would bestr0nger.~9Nexr montb-PartII1. Stmuder v. West Yirgltiiia, I00 US, 303 (1880).2. See e.g. Varquez v. Htllery. US., 106 S.Ct. 617 (1986).3. 380 U.S. 202 (1965).4. McCrny v Abranu, 750F.2d 1113, I121 (ZdClr. 1984)?5. 476 U S . . 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986).6. See e.g. People v. Wheeler. 22 Ca1.3d258.148Cal. Reptr. 893, 583 P.2d 748 (1978); Cornrnorrlvealttrv. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, 387 N.E.2d499, cert. denied* 444 US. 881, 100 S.Ct. 170,62L.Ed.2d 110 (1979).7. GriBith v. Kenmcb, U S . 107S.Ct. 709 (1987). Seealso Hardyx State, No. 014-87(Tex.Crim.App. March 18, 1987), rev'gl22 S.W.2d164 (Tex.App.-Houston 114th Dist.] 1986) (courtofappds erroneously ruled that &tsm did not apply~mactively); But see AIIa v. Hardy, U.S., I06 S.Ct. 2878 (1986) (Batmi does notapply retmactwely oncollateral attaek); Joh~~son v.Me, No.O.05-8MX)781-CR(Tex App.-Dallas Match17, 19873 (appellant may not attackprior convictionsalleged for enhancement purposes on Banon grounds)fonoublishedsndtherefam of no orceedential value\.i hi", 380 us. atzo304:ss s.a. at a zi.9. State v. Brown, 371 3o.2d 751.752 n.7 (La..-.-,. 19791lo. Doyel, h Search of0 Remedy for the RaciallyDiscriminn~ory Use of Peremptory Ckllexges, 38Okla. L. Rev. 385, 388 (1985).11. Batsm, 106 S.Ct. at 1723.12. Id. Balmn isafourlcmthsmendment case thus,aneutral explanation must bsprovidedfor each jurorso that his rights to serve in the jury process are notviolated. See Keeton v. Slnte, No.69,639, slip op. at12n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. April 15, 1987) (onreh'g).If this were treated as a sixth amendment issue, thecmoial Inquiry wouldbe whether thedefendant wereafforded a fair and impanial trial. If that were thcinquiry, perhaps the prosecutor would not bs requiredro present a neutral explanation for striking each juror.13. Batsou, 106 S.Ct. at 1723.14. Batson, 106 S.Ct at 1715.15. Id. at 1725.16. Henry v. Slate. No. 1216-85. slip op. at 7-8Cfex. Crim. App. April 8,1987). The Court held thatin casespending onreview or not yet final at the tnneB~WDII was decided, thedefendant need only presentthe issue to the trial court. See WiIIimr~s v. Sfate, 712S W.2d835.M (Tex. App.-Carpus Chrisd 1986.pet. pending). Interestingly, in Willint~~s, the defendantprcscnted his objection before mther side exercisedany strikes. Counsel notcd that the Stale"could" use its peremptory stnkes to axciude threeblack on the venire. The court correctly held thatthe objection came tw early. Seedso Price v. Smie,No. AL4-86-595-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [lllthDit I March5, 1987) (not yet reported); ed);~hiStnlesIL Ervin, 793 F.2d 656, 667 (5th CK. 1986).17. People v. Parker, 509 NYS2d 586,588 (A.D2 Dent - 19%)18. Tex. R. App. P. 52.19. Sarhmr v. Stare, 500 So.2d 1322, I323 (AlaCrim. App. 1986).20. Basox, 106 S.Ct. at 1715.21. Barson, 106 S.Ct. at 1723.22. Id. When the court states that "these facts"must raise an inference. ..oresumablv it refers to thek t ihaldefcndnnt is black and the prusccumr struckbllcks and thc fact tl~st ycrumpmry clrallcngcr arc upotentially discriminatory prorms.23. The absenceof Tenas caselaw onBarson maybe remedied shortly. With Henry v. Stafe, No.1216-85 (Tex. Crim. App. April 8, 1987) andgeetonv. State, No. 69,639 (Tx. Ctim. App. ApIit 15,1987) dtscussed supra at note 112, the Court ofCriminal Appeals has demonstrated a willingness toabate and remand pmblematic eases.24. Sa~ders v. Slate, No. 06-86-WXKCR (Tex.App.-Texarkana March 4. 1987); Catley v. StaleeNo. BI4-86-LW77-CR (Tea. App.-Hausbn [14thDist I February 26, 1987): Sdlamr v. Sfole, No.02-86-WO59-CR (TSL App.-Fon Wonh March 12,1987); Price v. Sm, No. A14-86-00595-CR (Tcx.ADD.-Houstan 114th Distl March 5.19871: Wdlia!mtherefore of no precedentid value).25. Tonv~set~d v. Stote, No. 6&059 (Tex.App.-TexarkanaMarch 17,1967); Sendersv. Stole,No. 6-86-006 (Tex. App.-Texarkana March 4,1987); Chanrbers v. Sfare, 724 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.1 1986); Rijo v. Slim, 721S.W.2d 562 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1986); Wdlimrsv. Sate, 712S.W.Zd835 (Tm. App.-Corpus Christi1986) ..--,26. No. 01-864370CR (Tex. App.-Houston [lstDist.1 February 12, 1987).27. No. 13-86-044-CR (Tex. App.-CorppsChristi Feb. 12, 1987).28. Id. at 3.29. No. A14-86-595-CR (Tex. App.-Houston[14th Dist.] March 5, 1987) (not yet reported).30. Id., shp op. at 3.31. Peoplev. Johnson, 502 N.E.2d 301.31 1 (111.App. 1 Did. 1986); Weekly a Smte.496 N.E 2d29,31 Ond. 1986).32. Any person present in the courfmomduringvoir dm would be able to testify as to the race ofthe defendant and the jurors struck, including thedefendant, the badBaodthecnur xgorter. Thismayallay any qualms about the propriety of an attorney'stestifying, raisad by Canon Five offhe Code of PmfessronalResponsibility.33. Uirtted Slates v. Dewis, 804 F.2d 1208, 1210(11th Cir. 1986) (cittng Cmtaned~ v. Partido. 430U.S. 482, 494 (1977).34. 721 S W.2d562 (Tex. App.-Amanllo 1986).35. Id. at 563.36. Gnm 5,. State, No. 13-86-044-CR (Tex.App.-Corpus Christr Fcbruary 12, 1987) (not yetreported); Salazar v. State, No. 2-86-059-CR (Tex.App.-Fort Wonh March 12, 1987) (not yetreported). Although thecourt in Sabzor, drsmlsseddefendant's daim imn waver grounds, thecwrt seemsto reco&c his righz as a member of a cognizableracial group to raisea Balm, cia~m. Seealso Peoplev. Trwino, 701 P.2d 719, 726 (Cal 1985).37. UnitedSrctesv. Chalnn, 88L2F.2d 1302 (10thCtr. 1987)38. ~o~~~~ornwollh v. Gagmm, 449 N.E.2d 686,692 (Mass. App. 1983).39. Cmm~m~wen1IJ1 v. Reid, 424 N.E.Zd495.5W(Mass. 1981).40. 495 N.E.2d 279, 281 (Mas 1986).41. 720 S.W.2d 736 (Mo. App. 1986).42. 1d. at 736. See also Henfon v. State, 350S.E Zd480.482, 180 Cia. App. 718 (1986); Kiblerv. Stnte, 501 SoSd 76, 77 (Ha. App. 5 1987).cmti,~ued on page 3924 VUICEfor ihe Defnse I October 1987