Batson claim in Oklahoma

1995See 22 O.S.1981, § 655; Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 ,-, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 2358-59 , 120 L.Ed.2d 33, 51 (1992) (holding the prosecution in a criminal trial also has a right to make a Batson challenge during jury selection).

1995See 22 O.S.1981, § 655; Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 ,-, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 2358-59 , 120 L.Ed.2d 33, 51 (1992) (holding the prosecution in a criminal trial also has a right to make a Batson challenge during jury selection).

2024When adjudicating a Batson claim, trial courts follow a three-step process: "First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race; second, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question; and third, in light of the parties' submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination." Snyder v. Louisiana , 552 U.S. 472, 476-477 (2008) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

2024When adjudicating a Batson claim, trial courts follow a three-step process: "First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race; second, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question; and third, in light of the parties' submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination." Snyder v. Louisiana , 552 U.S. 472, 476-477 (2008) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

2024Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 26, 205 P.3d 1, 14. ¶61 The Court set forth the applicable analysis of a Batson claim in Grant, stating: Batson establishes a three-part inquiry.

2024Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 26, 205 P.3d 1, 14. ¶61 The Court set forth the applicable analysis of a Batson claim in Grant, stating: Batson establishes a three-part inquiry.

2024It had been so long ago that D.H. could not remember the reason for the arrest. ¶67 A criminal defendant raising a Batson challenge may present a variety of evidence to support a claim that a prosecutor's peremptory strikes were made based on race, including "side-by-side comparisons of black prospective jurors who were struck and white prospective jurors who were not struck in the case." Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. 284, 302 (2019).

2024It had been so long ago that D.H. could not remember the reason for the arrest. ¶67 A criminal defendant raising a Batson challenge may present a variety of evidence to support a claim that a prosecutor's peremptory strikes were made based on race, including "side-by-side comparisons of black prospective jurors who were struck and white prospective jurors who were not struck in the case." Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. 284, 302 (2019).

2017Id. (internal citations omitted). ¶30 When the State sought to excuse R.G. with a peremptory challenge, Appellant objected and raised a Batson challenge.

2017Id. (internal citations omitted). ¶30 When the State sought to excuse R.G. with a peremptory challenge, Appellant objected and raised a Batson challenge.

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2024See Turrentine v. State , 1998 OK CR 33, ¶ 11, 965 P.2d 955, 965 ("that [prospective juror] was not candid with the trial court was a sufficient race-neutral explanation."). ¶7 The record shows no Batson violation occurred.

2024See Turrentine v. State , 1998 OK CR 33, ¶ 11, 965 P.2d 955, 965 ("that [prospective juror] was not candid with the trial court was a sufficient race-neutral explanation."). ¶7 The record shows no Batson violation occurred.

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2013See also Purkett v. Bern [Elem ], 115 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (setting out 3 step analysis that trial court should use in ruling on objection to peremptory challenge); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 [ 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 ] (1991) (criminal defendant may object to race-based peremptory challenges even though the excluded jurors and the criminal defendant are not of the same race); Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 17-23 , 896 P.2d 537 , 546-57 47 (Old.Cr.1004) (procedure for ruling on objections to peremptory challenges); Blac

2011Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235, 248 (2d Cir.1998). ¶ 10 The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered this question and found that deprivation of the statutory number of peremptory challenges was not structural error.

2011Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235, 248 (2d Cir.1998). ¶ 10 The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered this question and found that deprivation of the statutory number of peremptory challenges was not structural error.

2011U.S. v. McFerron, 163 F.3d 952, 956 (6th Cir. 1998). [1] The Second Circuit has held that the denial of peremptory challenges arising from a Batson claim is structural error, but did not extend that to all denials of peremptory challenges.

2011U.S. v. McFerron, 163 F.3d 952, 956 (6th Cir. 1998). [1] The Second Circuit has held that the denial of peremptory challenges arising from a Batson claim is structural error, but did not extend that to all denials of peremptory challenges.

2005In Sorensen v. State, 6 P.3d 657, 662-63 (Wyo.2000) and State v. Wilson, 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656, 663-64 (App.1993), the Wyoming Su preme Court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals respectively rejected an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to make a Batson challenge.

2005In Sorensen v. State, 6 P.3d 657, 662-63 (Wyo.2000) and State v. Wilson, 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656, 663-64 (App.1993), the Wyoming Su preme Court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals respectively rejected an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to make a Batson challenge.

2005In Sorensen v. State, 6 P.3d 657, 662-63 (Wyo.2000) and State v. Wilson, 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656, 663-64 (App.1993), the Wyoming Su preme Court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals respectively rejected an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to make a Batson challenge.

2005In Sorensen v. State, 6 P.3d 657, 662-63 (Wyo.2000) and State v. Wilson, 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656, 663-64 (App.1993), the Wyoming Su preme Court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals respectively rejected an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to make a Batson challenge.

1995Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d at 1372 ; Franklin, 456 S.E.2d at 359 (citing State v. Jones, 293 S.C. 54 , 358 S.E.2d 701 (1987) (Batson violation requires jury be quashed and selection begin de novo)).

1995Black cites McCollum in its discussion of defendant's waiver of a Batson claim, but does not address the problem posed where the State responds to a defendant's peremptory challenge. [13] See, e.g., The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibits a Criminal Defendant's Exercise of Racially Discriminatory Peremptory Challenges, 23 Seton Hall L.Rev. 1160 (1993); The Discriminatory Effect of the "Color-Blind" Jury — Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 , 112 S.Ct. 2348 (1992), 16 Hamline L.Rev. 975 (1993); Limiting a Defendant's Peremptory Challenges: Georgia v. McCollum and the Pro

1994Based on this persuasive authority, and finding the analysis in Wilson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1989) (enunciating a standard of review to be used in reviewing the relevant facts surrounding a Batson issue) well reasoned, we now review the record for fundamental error, viewing the pertinent facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's rulings.

1994United States v. Dobynes, 905 F.2d 1192, 1196-97 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 877 , 111 S.Ct. 206 , 112 L.Ed.2d 167 (1991); Ex parte State, 581 So.2d 495, 496 (Ala. 1991); State v. Robbins, 319 N.C. 465 , 356 S.E.2d 279, 293 (1987).

1994Furthermore, for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 579 (Okl.Cr.1989), I continue to view the so-called “anti-sympathy” instruction in the second stage unnecessary and confusing to the jury where mitigating evidence has been introduced.

1994Furthermore, for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 579 (Okl.Cr.1989), I continue to view the so-called “anti-sympathy” instruction in the second stage unnecessary and confusing to the jury where mitigating evidence has been introduced.