On February 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of North Carolina vacated Defendant Christopher Clegg’s sentence after finding that a Batson violation had occurred at the trial court level. Although it took six years, in which time the Defendant had completed his sentence, the Defendant was eventually successful in what has become a nearly impossible claim.
While the history of the case is quite complex, the issue boils down to a Prosecutor’s decision to use peremptory strikes on two* black women. The two women, Ms. Jeffreys and Ms. Aubrey, were struck for a list of reasons, including Ms. Jeffreys’ prior work history in mental health, their body language and lack of eye contact, and Ms. Aubrey’s response when asked if she could be fair and impartial. Despite the Defendant’s claims of discrimination, the trial court found that no Batson violation had occurred. The case eventually made its way to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
In what has become a rarity, the Court found that a Batson violation had occurred and that the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. While the Court underwent the three-step Batson test, much of its analysis focused on the third step–weighing the Prosecutor’s justifications with the Defendant’s allegations of discrimination. While the Supreme Court agreed with parts of the trial court’s decision, the Court found major flaws in its analysis.
1. The Prosecutor mischaracterized the record, and the trial court was correct to reject his proffered reason. One reason for striking Ms. Aubrey was that when asked if she could be fair and impartial, the Prosecutor recalled that she answered “I suppose.” However, after a careful look at the record, the Prosecutor’s recollection of her answer was wrong. And, according to Foster (578 U.S. at 505, 510), any offered reasons that are contradicted or mischaracterized must be thrown out.
2. The Prosecutor’s only remaining reason–body language and lack of eye contact–was unsupported by the record and correctly thrown out by the trial court. The Prosecutor argued that both women were rejected because of their body language and lack of eye contact. But, when the Defendant challenged this, the trial court made no specific findings regarding Ms. Aubrey’s demeanor.
3. The trial court was correct to consider Defendant’s statistical evidence tending to show racial discrimination at this specific trial and North Carolina, in general. At the trial level, the Defendant provided evidence that out of the twenty-two potential jurors, only three were non-white–two of which were struck by the Prosecutor. This resulted in a jury of eleven white members and one mixed-race juror. At the state level, the Defendant provided evidence that black jurors were struck about twice as much as white jurors.
4. But, the trial court failed to consider the disparate treatment of jurors during questioning. For example, when Ms. Aubrey was questioned about hardships she would face serving on the jury, she was the only juror singled out for further questioning, despite being “far from the only one” who had substantial work- or family-related hardships.
5. Overall, the trial court was incorrect to still find that the Defendant did not meet his burden of proof, despite all of the Prosecutor's race-neutral reasons being thrown out. A finding that all of the proffered race-neutral reasons were invalid was the same as having no race-neutral reasons at all. At that point, all there was left to consider was the Defendant’s evidence of discrimination.
6. No “smoking-gun” needed. Here, the trial court imposed an unnecessarily high burden on the Defendant. “Highlighted names and trick questions are not required;” defendants may present direct and circumstantial evidence of discrimination.
7. The trial court may not “imagine” a reason for the Prosecution. If the reasons presented by the Prosecution fail, that’s a wrap. The court may not come up with reasons or justifications on the prosecution's behalf.
The Court cautioned against the improper use of peremptory strikes, acknowledging their controversial past. While it is often difficult, if not impossible, to succeed on these claims, this case serves as a warning against the improper use of these trial tools.
*While this case challenges the peremptory strikes of two black women from the jury, the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to consider one of the potentially justifiable strikes, because “[t]he Constitution forbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discriminatory purpose.”
No comments:
Post a Comment