Batson motion in Alabama

2013See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Batson error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’). “ ‘Under Alabama law, the trial judge must “evaluate] the evidence and explanations presented” and “determine whether the explanations are sufficient to overcome the presumption of bias.” Branch, 526 So.2d at 624 .

2013See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Batson error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’). “ ‘Under Alabama law, the trial judge must “evaluate] the evidence and explanations presented” and “determine whether the explanations are sufficient to overcome the presumption of bias.” Branch, 526 So.2d at 624 .

2009“After the appellant makes a timely Batson motion and establishes a prima facie showing of discrimination, the burden shifts to the state to provide a race-neutral reason for each strike - See, e.g., Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676 (Ala.1991).” Cooper v. State, 611 So.2d 460, 463 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2002Based on the rationale set forth in Walker , we conclude that the prosecutor's reasons for striking [this potential juror] were not race-neutral and that the trial court's denial of the appellant's Batson motion was clearly erroneous. `[O]ne unconstitutional peremptory strike requires reversal and a new trial.' Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676, 683 (Ala.1991)." Lucy v. State, supra at 1178 (footnote omitted).

2026Id., at 98 [, 106 S. Ct. 1712 ]." " 'Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 328-29 , 123 S. Ct. 1029 . " 'When a trial court does not make an express finding that the defendant has established 22 CR-2022-1044 a prima facie case of discrimination under the first step of the process but the prosecution nonetheless provides reasons for its strikes under the second step of the process, "this Court will review the reasons given and the trial court's ultimate decision on the Batson motion without any determination of whether the moving party met its burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination." Ex parte

2026A. Failure to "Timely" Make a Batson Objection Creque contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to "timely object to the State's use of racially discriminatory peremptory strikes under Batson." (Creque's brief, p. 47.) Creque argues on appeal, as he did in his petition, that trial counsel's performance was deficient because: the State used its peremptory challenges to remove five of six prospective Black jurors; Creque, a Black man, was tried for an "interracial crime" by an "all-white jury"; counsel's Batson objection was made after the jury was sworn; and counsel

2010We will reverse the circuit court’s ruling on the Batson motion only if it is “clearly erroneous.” Jackson v. State, 549 So.2d 616 (Ala.Cr.App.1989).’” Killingsworth v. State, 82 So.3d 716, 749 (Ala.Crim.App.2009), quoting, Cooper v. State, 611 So.2d 460, 463 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

2010As the majority correctly observes, because “ ‘[t]he trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses,’ ” Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880, 899 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Heard v. State, 584 So.2d 556, 561 (Ala.Crim.App.1991)), an appellate court must give deference to a trial court’s findings and “ ‘reverse the circuit court’s ruling on the Batson motion only if it is “clearly erroneous.” ’ ” Johnson, 43 So.3d at 12 (quoting Cooper v. State, 611 So.2d 460, 463 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), quoting in turn Jackson v. State, 549 So.2d 616, 619

2026This holding was extended to white defendants, Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991); to defense counsel in criminal cases, Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992); and to gender, J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (1994). " 'When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a Batson motion, this Court gives deference to the trial court and will reverse a trial court's decision only if the ruling is clearly erroneous.' Yancey v. State, 813 So. 2d 1, 3 (Ala. Crim.

2018Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." Hernandez v. New York , 500 U.S. 352 , 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). " 'When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a Batson motion, this court gives deference to the trial court and will reverse a trial court's decision only if the ruling is clearly erroneous.' Yancey v. State , 813 So.2d 1 , 3 (Ala. Crim.

2013We do not find the statistics or defense counsel’s assertions that in his opinion no legitimate reasons for the strikes were revealed during voir dire to be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. ‘A circuit court’s ruling on a Batson objection is entitled to great deference, and we will reverse such a ruling only if it is clearly erroneous.’ Talley v. State, 687 So.2d 1261, 1267 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). ‘“[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm convi

2013When Lane was unable to provide any additional evidence or arguments regarding the challenged veniremembers, aside from the fact that the jury was all white, the trial court denied his motions. “ ‘It is well settled that the ruling of the trial court on a Batson hearing is entitled to substantial deference and will not be disturbed on review unless it is “clearly erroneous.”’” Rice v. State, 84 So.3d 144, 151 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), quoting Ex parte Bankhead, 625 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.1993) (internal citation omitted). “ ‘ “[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to sup

2013We do not find the statistics or defense counsel’s assertions that in his opinion no legitimate reasons for the strikes were revealed during voir dire to be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. ‘A circuit court’s ruling on a Batson objection is entitled to great deference, and we will reverse such a ruling only if it is clearly erroneous.’ Talley v. State, 687 So.2d 1261, 1267 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). ‘“[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm convi

2012The prosecutor’s reason for removing juror R.N. was race neutral. “ £A circuit court’s ruling on a Batson objection is entitled to great deference, and we will reverse such a ruling only if it is clearly erroneous.’” Brown v. State, 982 So.2d 565, 587 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (quoting Talley v. State, 687 So.2d 1261, 1267 (Ala.Crim.App.1996)).

1996A. Alabama Rule The three-step procedural framework for eliminating discrimination in Alabama jury selection was succinctly described in Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992), as follows: "Upon the exercise of the ... first peremptory challenge of [an ethnic] veniremember, a[n opponent of the strike] is entitled to [(1) request and receive] a Batson hearing. [3] Harrell v. State, 555 So.2d 263, 267-68 (Ala.1989) (adopting a `bright line test' for determining the defendant's right to a hearing)....

1996A. Alabama Rule The three-step procedural framework for eliminating discrimination in Alabama jury selection was succinctly described in Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992), as follows: "Upon the exercise of the ... first peremptory challenge of [an ethnic] veniremember, a[n opponent of the strike] is entitled to [(1) request and receive] a Batson hearing. [3] Harrell v. State, 555 So.2d 263, 267-68 (Ala.1989) (adopting a `bright line test' for determining the defendant's right to a hearing)....

2007When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a Batson motion, this court gives deference to the trial court’s ruling and will reverse that court’s decision only if it is clearly erroneous; Yancey v. State, 813 So.2d 1, 3 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); Farrior v. State, 728 So.2d 691 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Nance v. State, 598 So.2d 30 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); and Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 1289 (Ala.Crim.App.1991).

2005Nance v. State, 598 So.2d 30, 31 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 1289, 1294 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). `It is well settled that the ruling of the trial court on a Batson hearing is entitled to substantial deference and will not be disturbed on review unless it is "clearly erroneous."' Ex parte Bankhead, 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1993)."' " Farrior v. State, 728 So.2d 691, 698 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), quoting Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77, 88 (Ala. Crim.App.1993).

2006However, in Ex parte Thomas , 659 So.2d 3 , 7 (Ala. 1994), a case decided after Harris's direct appeals at the state level had been exhausted, but before the United States Supreme Court had disposed of her case on certiorari review, this Court held: "We disapprove the statement in Harrell [v. State , 571 So.2d 1270 (Ala. 1990),] indicating that `[w]hen the evidence shows only that blacks were struck and that a greater percentage of blacks sat on the jury than sat on the lawfully established venire, an inference of discrimination has not been created,' 571 So.2d at 1271 , to the extent that it

2006However, in Ex parte Thomas , 659 So.2d 3 , 7 (Ala. 1994), a case decided after Harris's direct appeals at the state level had been exhausted, but before the United States Supreme Court had disposed of her case on certiorari review, this Court held: "We disapprove the statement in Harrell [v. State , 571 So.2d 1270 (Ala. 1990),] indicating that `[w]hen the evidence shows only that blacks were struck and that a greater percentage of blacks sat on the jury than sat on the lawfully established venire, an inference of discrimination has not been created,' 571 So.2d at 1271 , to the extent that it

1995This issue has not been preserved for review by proper and timely objection. '[I]n order to preserve the issue for appellate review, a Batson objection, in a case in which the death penalty has not been imposed, must be made prior to the jury's being sworn.' Bell v. State , 535 So.2d 210 , 212 (Ala. 1988).

1994See Bell v. State , 535 So.2d 210 , 212 (Ala. 1988) ("in order to preserve the issue for appellate review, a Batson objection, in a case in which the death penalty has not been imposed, must be made prior to the jury's being sworn ") (emphasis added), quoted in, e.g., Ross v. State , 581 So.2d 495 , 496 (Ala. 1991); Jordan v. State , 607 So.2d 333 , 334 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992); Fearn v. City of Huntsville , 568 So.2d 349 , 351 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990).

1998In Watkins v. State , 509 So.2d 1074 (Ala. 1987), a capital case in which the issue was the retroactive application of Batson , the Alabama Supreme Court refused to remand a capital case for a Batson hearing stating that the record "does not show that the state exercised any of its peremptory challenges to remove prospective black jurors from the venire.

1998In Watkins v. State , 509 So.2d 1074 (Ala. 1987), a capital case in which the issue was the retroactive application of Batson , the Alabama Supreme Court refused to remand a capital case for a Batson hearing stating that the record "does not show that the state exercised any of its peremptory challenges to remove prospective black jurors from the venire.

2013We do not find the statistics or defense counsel’s assertions that in his opinion no legitimate reasons for the strikes were revealed during voir dire to be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. ‘A circuit court’s ruling on a Batson objection is entitled to great deference, and we will reverse such a ruling only if it is clearly erroneous.’ Talley v. State, 687 So.2d 1261, 1267 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). ‘“[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm convi

2013When Lane was unable to provide any additional evidence or arguments regarding the challenged veniremembers, aside from the fact that the jury was all white, the trial court denied his motions. “ ‘It is well settled that the ruling of the trial court on a Batson hearing is entitled to substantial deference and will not be disturbed on review unless it is “clearly erroneous.”’” Rice v. State, 84 So.3d 144, 151 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), quoting Ex parte Bankhead, 625 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.1993) (internal citation omitted). “ ‘ “[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to sup

2007When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a Batson motion, this court gives deference to the trial court’s ruling and will reverse that court’s decision only if it is clearly erroneous; Yancey v. State, 813 So.2d 1, 3 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); Farrior v. State, 728 So.2d 691 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Nance v. State, 598 So.2d 30 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); and Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 1289 (Ala.Crim.App.1991).

2005Nance v. State, 598 So.2d 30, 31 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 1289, 1294 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). `It is well settled that the ruling of the trial court on a Batson hearing is entitled to substantial deference and will not be disturbed on review unless it is "clearly erroneous."' Ex parte Bankhead, 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1993)."' " Farrior v. State, 728 So.2d 691, 698 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), quoting Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77, 88 (Ala. Crim.App.1993).

2018Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." Hernandez v. New York , 500 U.S. 352 , 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). " 'When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a Batson motion, this court gives deference to the trial court and will reverse a trial court's decision only if the ruling is clearly erroneous.' Yancey v. State , 813 So.2d 1 , 3 (Ala. Crim.

2018Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." Hernandez v. New York , 500 U.S. 352 , 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). " 'When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a Batson motion, this court gives deference to the trial court and will reverse a trial court's decision only if the ruling is clearly erroneous.' Yancey v. State , 813 So.2d 1 , 3 (Ala. Crim.

2002Young v. State , 730 So.2d 1251 , 1253-54 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998); Moore v. State , 677 So.2d [828,] 829 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1996)]. `"It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine if the State's peremptory challenges of black jurors are motivated by intentional racial discrimination."' Taylor v. State , 666 So.2d 36 , 43 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), aff'd 666 So.2d 73 (Ala. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 . . . (1996), quoting Ex parte Lynn , 543 So.2d 709 , 712 (Ala. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 . . . (1989). `A circuit court's ruling on a Batson objection is entitled to great defe

1995The judgment of the trial court on a Batson motion is entitled to deference on appeal, Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 , 106 S.Ct. at 1724 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 89 , and will be reversed only if the ruling is “clearly erroneous.” Lynn v. State, 543 So.2d 709 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 351 , 107 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

1996A. Alabama Rule The three-step procedural framework for eliminating discrimination in Alabama jury selection was succinctly described in Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992), as follows: "Upon the exercise of the ... first peremptory challenge of [an ethnic] veniremember, a[n opponent of the strike] is entitled to [(1) request and receive] a Batson hearing. [3] Harrell v. State, 555 So.2d 263, 267-68 (Ala.1989) (adopting a `bright line test' for determining the defendant's right to a hearing)....

1996A. Alabama Rule The three-step procedural framework for eliminating discrimination in Alabama jury selection was succinctly described in Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992), as follows: "Upon the exercise of the ... first peremptory challenge of [an ethnic] veniremember, a[n opponent of the strike] is entitled to [(1) request and receive] a Batson hearing. [3] Harrell v. State, 555 So.2d 263, 267-68 (Ala.1989) (adopting a `bright line test' for determining the defendant's right to a hearing)....

1994App.1992); Powell, supra; Currin, supra. We also note that the record indicates that Chitty himself had a criminal case pending against him at the time of McNair's trial and that Chitty may not have been the subject of the Batson objection.

1994Scott v. State , 599 So.2d 1222 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), cert. denied, Ex parte Scott , 599 So.2d 1229 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Powell supra; Currin , supra. We also note that the record indicates that Chitty himself had a criminal case pending against him at the time of McNair's trial and that Chitty may not have been the subject of the Batson objection.

2013When Lane was unable to provide any additional evidence or arguments regarding the challenged veniremembers, aside from the fact that the jury was all white, the trial court denied his motions. “ ‘It is well settled that the ruling of the trial court on a Batson hearing is entitled to substantial deference and will not be disturbed on review unless it is “clearly erroneous.”’” Rice v. State, 84 So.3d 144, 151 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), quoting Ex parte Bankhead, 625 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.1993) (internal citation omitted). “ ‘ “[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to sup

2013When Lane was unable to provide any additional evidence or arguments regarding the challenged veniremembers, aside from the fact that the jury was all white, the trial court denied his motions. “ ‘It is well settled that the ruling of the trial court on a Batson hearing is entitled to substantial deference and will not be disturbed on review unless it is “clearly erroneous.”’” Rice v. State, 84 So.3d 144, 151 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), quoting Ex parte Bankhead, 625 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.1993) (internal citation omitted). “ ‘ “[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to sup

1997As this Court stated in Ex parte Watkins , 509 So.2d 1074 , 1077 (Ala. 1987), cert. denied, Watkins v. Alabama , 484 U.S. 918 , 108 S.Ct. 269 , 98 L.Ed.2d 226 (1987) [in which this Court had the opportunity in a death penalty case to remand for an evidentiary hearing on a Batson issue, but refused to do so], '[t]he defendant cannot successfully argue that error is plain in the record when there is no indication in the record that the act upon which the error is predicated ever occurred.' " Ex parte McNair , 653 So.2d 353 , 360 (Ala. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1159 , 115 S.Ct. 1121 , 130 L.E

1989Indeed, in Ex parte Watkins , 509 So.2d 1074 (Ala.), cert. denied, Watkins v. Alabama , 484 U.S. 918 , 108 S.Ct. 269 , 98 L.Ed.2d 226 (1987), the Alabama Supreme Court refused to remand a capital case for a Batson hearing where the record showed the accused was black but did not show the prosecution had used its peremptory strikes to remove black venire members.

1997As this Court stated in Ex parte Watkins , 509 So.2d 1074 , 1077 (Ala. 1987), cert. denied, Watkins v. Alabama , 484 U.S. 918 , 108 S.Ct. 269 , 98 L.Ed.2d 226 (1987) [in which this Court had the opportunity in a death penalty case to remand for an evidentiary hearing on a Batson issue, but refused to do so], '[t]he defendant cannot successfully argue that error is plain in the record when there is no indication in the record that the act upon which the error is predicated ever occurred.' " Ex parte McNair , 653 So.2d 353 , 360 (Ala. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1159 , 115 S.Ct. 1121 , 130 L.E

1989Indeed, in Ex parte Watkins , 509 So.2d 1074 (Ala.), cert. denied, Watkins v. Alabama , 484 U.S. 918 , 108 S.Ct. 269 , 98 L.Ed.2d 226 (1987), the Alabama Supreme Court refused to remand a capital case for a Batson hearing where the record showed the accused was black but did not show the prosecution had used its peremptory strikes to remove black venire members.