Batson challenge in Mississippi

2024So in an utterly predictable holding, this Court moves heaven and earth to apply Batson protections, allowing the trial court to use Batson protections without a proper Batson analysis, protecting white jurors no matter the failure to adhere to proper procedure; yet, this Court seems to forget the existence of Batson protections each time it is called upon to use those protections for the benefit of Black jurors.3 Because the trial court failed to conduct a full 2 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 , 90 L.

2024So in an utterly predictable holding, this Court moves heaven and earth to apply Batson protections, allowing the trial court to use Batson protections without a proper Batson analysis, protecting white jurors no matter the failure to adhere to proper procedure; yet, this Court seems to forget the existence of Batson protections each time it is called upon to use those protections for the benefit of Black jurors.3 Because the trial court failed to conduct a full 2 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 , 90 L.

2026“It is well established that a Batson violation may be shown by disparate treatment of white and minority jurors—that is, if a ‘side-by-side comparison[] of some black [potential jurors] who were struck and white ones who were not’ shows that the only material distinction between the removed black and the retained white individuals is their race.” 9 Brown v. State, 306 So. 3d 719 , 744 (¶100) (Miss. 2020) (quoting United States v. Atkins, 843 F.3d 625, 631 (6th Cir. 2016)); see Flowers v. State, 947 So. 2d 910, 929 (¶46) (Miss. 2007) (purported race-neutral reason “highly suspect” when strike

2026“It is well established that a Batson violation may be shown by disparate treatment of white and minority jurors—that is, if a ‘side-by-side comparison[] of some black [potential jurors] who were struck and white ones who were not’ shows that the only material distinction between the removed black and the retained white individuals is their race.” 9 Brown v. State, 306 So. 3d 719 , 744 (¶100) (Miss. 2020) (quoting United States v. Atkins, 843 F.3d 625, 631 (6th Cir. 2016)); see Flowers v. State, 947 So. 2d 910, 929 (¶46) (Miss. 2007) (purported race-neutral reason “highly suspect” when strike

2017Yet the Mississippi Supreme Court “has cautioned .,, that previous opinions holding reasons to be race-neutral should not be construed to hold those reasons to be automatically race-neutral in any other case.” Pruitt, 986 So.2d at 945 (¶ 17) (citing Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346, 1353 (Miss. 1987)). ¶ 20/ Here, the trial' court did not explicitly rule on whether the State established the first step of a Batson challenge, the prima-facie case; however, the -issue - is moot because the trial court required the defense to provide race-neutral reasons Lor exercising the peremptory strikes.

2017Yet the Mississippi Supreme Court “has cautioned .,, that previous opinions holding reasons to be race-neutral should not be construed to hold those reasons to be automatically race-neutral in any other case.” Pruitt, 986 So.2d at 945 (¶ 17) (citing Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346, 1353 (Miss. 1987)). ¶ 20/ Here, the trial' court did not explicitly rule on whether the State established the first step of a Batson challenge, the prima-facie case; however, the -issue - is moot because the trial court required the defense to provide race-neutral reasons Lor exercising the peremptory strikes.

2011On Thorson’s direct appeal of his capital-murder conviction and sentence of death, this Court affirmed the trial court on all issues except a Batson issue, and the case was remanded to the trial court to conduct a Batson hearing. 1 Thorson v. State, 653 So.2d 876, 896 (Miss.1994).

2011On Thorson’s direct appeal of his capital-murder conviction and sentence of death, this Court affirmed the trial court on all issues except a Batson issue, and the case was remanded to the trial court to conduct a Batson hearing. 1 Thorson v. State, 653 So.2d 876, 896 (Miss.1994).

2016Cf. Hardison, 94 So. 3d at 1102 (“[T]he trial judge’s failure to conduct a proper Batson analysis constituted clear error.”); Hatten v. State, 628 So. 2d 294, 298 (Miss. 1993) (“[W]e today decide it necessary that the trial courts make an on-the-record, factual determination, of the merits of the reasons cited by the State for the use of its peremptory challenges against potential jurors.”). 19 ¶42.

2016Cf. Hardison, 94 So. 3d at 1102 (“[T]he trial judge’s failure to conduct a proper Batson analysis constituted clear error.”); Hatten v. State, 628 So. 2d 294, 298 (Miss. 1993) (“[W]e today decide it necessary that the trial courts make an on-the-record, factual determination, of the merits of the reasons cited by the State for the use of its peremptory challenges against potential jurors.”). 19 ¶42.

2010However, we find his argument directly conflicts with our supreme court’s clear instruction that: “ ‘a trial judge does not have the authority to invoke a Batson hearing on his own initiative,’ without the opposing party first making a prima facie showing of discriminatory purpose.” Brawner, 872 So.2d at 11 (¶ 28) (quoting Stewart v. State, 662 So.2d 552, 559 (Miss.1995)).

2010However, we find his argument directly conflicts with our supreme court’s clear instruction that: “ ‘a trial judge does not have the authority to invoke a Batson hearing on his own initiative,’ without the opposing party first making a prima facie showing of discriminatory purpose.” Brawner, 872 So.2d at 11 (¶ 28) (quoting Stewart v. State, 662 So.2d 552, 559 (Miss.1995)).

2026However, the supreme court stated that when the record is sufficient, “we are fully capable of balancing the Batson factors in cases such as this one.” Id. (quotation mark omitted) (quoting Pruitt, 986 So. 2d at 946-47 (¶21)).

2026However, the supreme court stated that when the record is sufficient, “we are fully capable of balancing the Batson factors in cases such as this one.” Id. (quotation mark omitted) (quoting Pruitt, 986 So. 2d at 946-47 (¶21)).

2025Puckett v. State, 737 So. 2d 322 (Miss. 1999). *remanded for Batson hearing.

2024Puckett v. State, 737 So. 2d 322 (Miss. 1999). *remanded for Batson hearing.

2024“In lodging a Batson claim, the party who objects to the peremptory strike ‘must first make a prima facie showing that race was the criteria for the exercise of the peremptory strike.’” Flowers v. State, 947 So. 2d 910, 917 (¶8) (Miss. 2007) (quoting McFarland v. State, 707 So. 2d 166, 171 (Miss. 1997)).

2024“In lodging a Batson claim, the party who objects to the peremptory strike ‘must first make a prima facie showing that race was the criteria for the exercise of the peremptory strike.’” Flowers v. State, 947 So. 2d 910, 917 (¶8) (Miss. 2007) (quoting McFarland v. State, 707 So. 2d 166, 171 (Miss. 1997)).

2020In reviewing a claim for a Batson violation, “we will not overrule a trial court on a Batson ruling unless the record indicates that the ruling was clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Thorson v. State, 721 So. 2d 590, 593 (Miss. 1998).

2014In reviewing an alleged Batson violation, we will not disturb a trial court’s “ruling unless the record indicates that the ruling was clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Thorson v. State, 721 So.2d 590, 593 (¶ 4) (Miss.1998).

2008"When a Batson issue arises, the trial judge acts as the finder of fact." Walker v. State, 815 So.2d 1209, 1215 (¶ 12) (Miss.2002) (citing Berry v. State, 703 So.2d 269, 295 (¶ 99) (Miss.1997)).

2008"One of the reasons the trial court is afforded such deference when a Batson challenge is raised is because the demeanor of the attorney making the challenge is often the best evidence on the issue of race neutrality." Id. (citing Webster v. State, 754 So.2d 1232, 1236 (¶ 10) (Miss.2000)).

1997Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289, 1298 (Miss. 1994) (assessing Batson claim where prima facie case consisted of seated jury was 75% black and venire was 56% black, and prosecutor used 20% of its challenges); see also Rousseau v. State, 824 S.W.2d 579 (Tex. Cr.App. 1992) (prima facie case established where state used 54% of strikes against blacks and Hispanics); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 411 Mass. 313 , 582 N.E.2d 929 (1991) (prima facie case made where state's strikes eliminated 67% of black veniremen, 14% of whites).

1993Mack v. State, 650 So. 2d 1289, 1298 (Miss. 1994) (assessing Batson claim where prima facie case consisted of seated jury was 75% black and venire was 56% black, and prosecutor used 20% of its challenges); see also Rousseau v. State, 824 S.W. 2d 579 (Tex. Cr.

2019At the same time, an analysis of the venire's and the jury's racial composition is not required: "The focus of the Batson inquiry is on the purposeful discrimination in a party's use of peremptory challenges, not on the ultimate racial composition of the jury." Berry v. State , 728 So.2d 568 , 572 (Miss. 1999) (citing Sudduth v. State , 562 So.2d 67 , 71 (Miss. 1990) ). ¶220.

2019At the same time, an analysis of the venire's and the jury's racial composition is not required: "The focus of the Batson inquiry is on the purposeful discrimination in a party's use of peremptory challenges, not on the ultimate racial composition of the jury." Berry v. State , 728 So.2d 568 , 572 (Miss. 1999) (citing Sudduth v. State , 562 So.2d 67 , 71 (Miss. 1990) ). ¶220.

2007"The trial judge acts as finder of fact when a Batson issue arises." Lynch v. State, 877 So.2d 1254, 1270 (Miss. 2004).

2006“The trial judge acts as finder of fact when a Batson issue arises.” Lynch v. State, 877 So. 2d 1254, 1270 (Miss. 2004).

2014“This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a Batson challenge with great deference and will not overturn the trial court’s ruling unless it is clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Id. at 942 (citing Flowers v. State, 947 So.2d 910, 917 (Miss.2007)). ¶ 38.

2014“This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a Batson challenge with great deference and will not overturn the trial court’s ruling unless it is clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Id. at 942 (citing Flowers v. State, 947 So.2d 910, 917 (Miss.2007)). ¶ 38.

2023In Hardison v. State, 94 So. 3d 1092, 1102 (Miss. 2012), the Court held that “when a trial judge erroneously denies a defendant a peremptory strike by failing to conduct the proper Batson analysis, prejudice is automatically presumed . . . .” ¶207.

2023In Hardison v. State, 94 So. 3d 1092, 1102 (Miss. 2012), the Court held that “when a trial judge erroneously denies a defendant a peremptory strike by failing to conduct the proper Batson analysis, prejudice is automatically presumed . . . .” ¶207.

2017“When a Batson issue arises, the trial judge acts as the finder of fact.” Walker v. State, 815 So.2d 1209, 1215 (¶12) (Miss. 2002).

2016In Walker v. State, 815 So. 2d 1209, 1215 (¶12) (Miss. 2002), the supreme court stated that “determination of discriminatory intent will likely turn on a trial judge's evaluation of a presenter's credibility and whether an explanation should be believed.” The Walker court explained that “[o]ne of the reasons the trial court is afforded such deference when a Batson challenge is raised is because the 13 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 33 demeanor of the attorney making the challenge is often the best evidence on the issue of [gender] neutrality.” Id.

2001This Court reversed the finding of the circuit court, stating that "the mere acceptance of other black persons as jurors is no defense to a Batson claim." Id. at 880 (citing Conerly v. State, 544 So.2d 1370, 1372 (Miss.1989)).

2001This Court reversed the finding of the circuit court, stating that "the mere acceptance of other black persons as jurors is no defense to a Batson claim." Id. at 880 (citing Conerly v. State, 544 So.2d 1370, 1372 (Miss.1989)).

2015Where error is assigned to a trial court’s ruling on a Batson challenge, an appellate court gives “great deference [to the trial court’s determinations] because they are largely based on credibility.” Puckett v. State, 788 So.2d 752, 756 (¶ 8) (Miss.2001) (citation b&itted).

2015Where error is assigned to a trial court’s ruling on a Batson challenge, an appellate court gives “great deference [to the trial court’s determinations] because they are largely based on credibility.” Puckett v. State, 788 So.2d 752, 756 (¶ 8) (Miss.2001) (citation b&itted).

2015In Randall v. State, 716 So.2d 584, 586 (¶9) (Miss.1998), the Mississippi Supreme Court outlined the Batson analysis, stating: First, the opponent of the strike must make a prima facje showing that the proponent has exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race.

2015In Randall v. State, 716 So.2d 584, 586 (¶9) (Miss.1998), the Mississippi Supreme Court outlined the Batson analysis, stating: First, the opponent of the strike must make a prima facje showing that the proponent has exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race.

2026See H.A.S., 232 So. 3d at 125 (¶27); Manning v. State, 735 So. 2d 323, 341 (¶34) (Miss. 1999) (failure to conduct Batson hearing at trial resulted in remand for a Batson hearing). ¶21.

2026See H.A.S., 232 So. 3d at 125 (¶27); Manning v. State, 735 So. 2d 323, 341 (¶34) (Miss. 1999) (failure to conduct Batson hearing at trial resulted in remand for a Batson hearing). ¶21.

2005This Court is fully capable of balancing the Batson factors in cases[.]” 17 However, the United States Supreme Court has held that when a party offers two race-neutral reasons for a peremptory strike, one of which is based on demeanor, the record must support one of the reasons if the trial court denies the challenge without making an on-the-record determination.18 Otherwise, the appellate court is unable to discern whether the trial court credited the demeanor-based reason.19 However, the Supreme Court subsequently rejected the argument that Snyder requires the trial court 14 See Stewart v. S

2005This Court is fully capable of balancing the Batson factors in cases[.]” 17 However, the United States Supreme Court has held that when a party offers two race-neutral reasons for a peremptory strike, one of which is based on demeanor, the record must support one of the reasons if the trial court denies the challenge without making an on-the-record determination.18 Otherwise, the appellate court is unable to discern whether the trial court credited the demeanor-based reason.19 However, the Supreme Court subsequently rejected the argument that Snyder requires the trial court 14 See Stewart v. S

2004Trial counsel went on the record to indicate that the failure to raise a Batson issue was a tactical decision based upon his understanding of the, at the time, recently decided case of Griffin v. State, 610 So.2d 354, 356 (Miss.1992), and upon instructions from his client.

1998Accordingly, in Griffin v. State, 610 So.2d 354, 356 (Miss. 1992), we upheld the State's successful Batson challenge to the defendant's use of peremptory strikes against white jurors on the basis of race.

2008In order to make a prima facie case of discrimination in the selection of a petit jury, "a white defendant must show . . . that the circumstances give rise to the inference that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenges in order to strike minorities." Bush v. State, 585 So.2d 1262, 1267-68 (Miss.1991); see Puckett v. State, 788 So.2d 752, 757 (Miss.2001) (acknowledging that the holding in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), eliminated the first two Batson factors).

2006In order to make a prima facie case of discrimination in the selection of a petit jury, “a white defendant must show . . . that the circumstances give rise to the inference that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenges in order to strike minorities.” Bush v. State, 585 So. 2d 1262, 1267-68 (Miss. 1991); see Puckett v. State, 788 So. 2d 752, 757 (Miss. 2001) (acknowledging that the holding in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), eliminated the first two Batson factors).