A Batson Win: State v. Clegg

 As discussed in my prior posting, Batson challenges are nearly impossible for a defendant to win.  This is because of the high burden Batson challenge proponents are required to meet.  First, the defendant must make a prima facie case, showing that the prosecution used a peremptory strike on a juror because of that juror's race.  Second, the prosecution must offer a non-race-based explanation for why that juror was struck.  Third, the court must decide whether the prosecution engaged in purposeful discrimination.  In sum, the court must find that: (1) the strike was actually motivated by race, and (2) the prosecution's race-neutral explanation is a lie. 

https://www.nccourts.gov/courts/supreme-court

Despite this high burden, one defendant in North Carolina just won a Batson challenge — which in turn invalidated his conviction.

In 2014, Christopher Clegg was indicted for robbery with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm by a felon.  Of the thirty-three potential jurors in his trial, only three were persons of color.  During jury selection, the defense counsel raised a Batson challenge after the prosecution used two peremptory strikes to remove two Black women from the jury.  Viola Jeffreys and Gwendolyn Aubrey were the only African American potential jurors in the jury box at the time.

The prosecutor offered two race-neutral explanations for striking these two women.  First, he stated that these strikes were exercised because of both women's "body language" and their "failure to look" at him.  Second, Jeffreys was struck because of her prior employment at the Dorothea Dix Hospital, where she worked as a nurse in the mental health field. Third, he struck Aubrey because she responded "I suppose" when he asked if she could be "fail and impartial" during the trial.

The defense argued that these explanations were all pretextual.  The trial court ruled that Clegg had "failed to establish that race was a significant factor in the peremptory strikes," and thus overruled his Batson challenge.  Clegg was convicted and sentenced to a term of sixty-six to ninety-two months in prison.  The case was appealed numerous times and in 2019 it was remanded by the North Carolina Supreme Court to be reheard at the trial court level.  Here, like before, the trial court found that there was no Batson violation — despite finding that the race-neutral justifications given by the prosector failed.

In 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for discretionary review.  The court found that the trial court was both correct and incorrect in their findings.  The trial court was correct to:

1.  Reject the "I suppose" explanation because it was contradicted by the trial record.  The record reflected that Aubrey actually answered "I suppose" to a question about whether she was "confident in her ability to focus on the trial," as she worked night shifts. 
2.  Reject the "body language" explanation because it was not supported by the record.  The North Carolina Supreme Court noted that this reasoning itself is suspect because historically it was found on race-neutral "cheat-sheets."
3.  Consider the statistical evidence regarding the disproportionate use of peremptory strikes against Black potential jurors in both this case and statewide.  The North Carolina Supreme Court noted that "such data is included among the many types of evidence that a defendant may present, and a court may consider, within a Batson challenge."

However, the trial court erred in various ways when applying the standards of proof and the weighing test of the Batson challenge.  Therefore, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order overruling the defendant's Batson objection, vacated the defendant's conviction, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

This is promising step towards the goal of eliminating racial discrimination in jury selection in North Carolina.