race-neutral explanation challenge in Ohio

2024Batson challenge during voir dire. {¶12} In his first assignment of error, Akins argues that the trial court erred when it denied his Batson challenge in response to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory strike to remove one of two remaining African American potential jurors and when the trial court did not conduct a sufficient hearing to decide the challenge. {¶13} The Supreme Court established a three-step procedure for evaluating claims of racial discrimination in peremptory strikes in Batson v. Kentucky, 6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (19

2024Batson challenge during voir dire. {¶12} In his first assignment of error, Akins argues that the trial court erred when it denied his Batson challenge in response to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory strike to remove one of two remaining African American potential jurors and when the trial court did not conduct a sufficient hearing to decide the challenge. {¶13} The Supreme Court established a three-step procedure for evaluating claims of racial discrimination in peremptory strikes in Batson v. Kentucky, 6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (19

2025Third, the trial court must determine whether, under all the circumstances, the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination.” State v. White, 85 Ohio St.3d 433, 436 (1999), citing Batson at 96-98 , Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-768 (1995), and State v. Hernandez, 63 Ohio St.3d 577, 582 (1992). {¶ 32} “To make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, the defendant must demonstrate (1) that members of a cognizable racial group were peremptorily challenged, and (2) that the facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used the peremptory

2024State v. White, 85 Ohio St.3d 433, 436 , 709 N.E.2d 140 (1999), citing Batson at 96-98 .

2025Third, the trial court must determine whether, under all the circumstances, the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination.” State v. White, 85 Ohio St.3d 433, 436 (1999), citing Batson at 96-98 , Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-768 (1995), and State v. Hernandez, 63 Ohio St.3d 577, 582 (1992). {¶ 32} “To make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, the defendant must demonstrate (1) that members of a cognizable racial group were peremptorily challenged, and (2) that the facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used the peremptory

2025Third, the trial court must determine whether, under all the circumstances, the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination.” State v. White, 85 Ohio St.3d 433, 436 (1999), citing Batson at 96-98 , Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-768 (1995), and State v. Hernandez, 63 Ohio St.3d 577, 582 (1992). {¶ 32} “To make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, the defendant must demonstrate (1) that members of a cognizable racial group were peremptorily challenged, and (2) that the facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used the peremptory

2014See Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. at 241-242 , 125 S.Ct. 2317 , 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (evidence of purposeful discrimination may be found if reason for challenge to African-American is equally applicable to otherwise similar non-African-American who is permitted to serve).

2014See Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. at 241-242 , 125 S.Ct. 2317 , 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (evidence of purposeful discrimination may be found if reason for challenge to African-American is equally applicable to otherwise similar non-African-American who is permitted to serve).

2014See Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2008-Ohio-2762 , 890 N.E.2d 263 , at ¶ 70 (prospective juror’s uncertainty about the death penalty accepted as a race-neutral explanation for challenge). {¶ 74} Moreover, a review of the voir dire examination of the seated jurors supports the plausibility of the prosecution’s reason for striking Hemphill for her views on the death penalty.