Batson challenge in Louisiana

2026“Thus, while the State is only required to offer a reason for the strike, the defendant raising a Batson challenge must establish proof of discriminatory intent.” Id., 2013-1794 at p. 5, 152 So. 3d at 129 . [T]he focus of the Batson inquiry is upon the intent of the prosecutor at the time he exercised his peremptory strikes.

2026“Thus, while the State is only required to offer a reason for the strike, the defendant raising a Batson challenge must establish proof of discriminatory intent.” Id., 2013-1794 at p. 5, 152 So. 3d at 129 . [T]he focus of the Batson inquiry is upon the intent of the prosecutor at the time he exercised his peremptory strikes.

2014As the Louisiana Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, “the ultimate focus of the Batson inquiry is on the prosecutor’s intent at the time of the strike.” State v. Juniors, 03-2425, p. 32 |2 (La.6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291, 319 (Weimer, J., writing for the majority) (citing Green , 94-0887 at 24, 655 So.2d at 287 ).

2014As the Louisiana Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, “the ultimate focus of the Batson inquiry is on the prosecutor’s intent at the time of the strike.” State v. Juniors, 03-2425, p. 32 |2 (La.6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291, 319 (Weimer, J., writing for the majority) (citing Green , 94-0887 at 24, 655 So.2d at 287 ).

2022State v. Tilley, 99-0569, (La. 7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 21 ; see also, State v. Potter, 591 So.2d 1166, 1168-69 (La. 1991) (failure to make Batson objection waived issue on appeal); State v. Spencer, 446 So.2d 1197, 1200 (La. 1984) (review of improper 17 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 22-KA-191 22 exclusion of blacks from jury not preserved for appeal).

2022State v. Tilley, 99-0569, (La. 7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 21 ; see also, State v. Potter, 591 So.2d 1166, 1168-69 (La. 1991) (failure to make Batson objection waived issue on appeal); State v. Spencer, 446 So.2d 1197, 1200 (La. 1984) (review of improper 17 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 22-KA-191 22 exclusion of blacks from jury not preserved for appeal).

2016However, in State v. Green, 94-887 (La. 5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272, 288 , the supreme court held that since the trial court immediately asked the State for a race-neutral explanation after the defense’ raised a Batson challenge, there was.a “tacit finding by the trial court that the defense had met its burden[.]” Referencing State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989), in State v. Payne, 94-114 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/7/95) , 657 So.2d 531, 534 , the fourth circuit held that “[w]here a trial judge, without expressly ruling on the issue, asks that race neutral reasons be given, the reviewing court may con

2016However, in State v. Green, 94-887 (La. 5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272, 288 , the supreme court held that since the trial court immediately asked the State for a race-neutral explanation after the defense’ raised a Batson challenge, there was.a “tacit finding by the trial court that the defense had met its burden[.]” Referencing State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989), in State v. Payne, 94-114 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/7/95) , 657 So.2d 531, 534 , the fourth circuit held that “[w]here a trial judge, without expressly ruling on the issue, asks that race neutral reasons be given, the reviewing court may con

2026For step two of a Batson analysis, “if a prima facie showing of discrimination is made, the burden shifts to the proponent of the strike to articulate a race-neutral explanation for the challenge.” Nelson, 2010-1724 at p. 9, 85 So. 3d at 29 . “[T]he trial court must then determine if the opponent of the strike has carried the ultimate burden of proving purposeful discrimination.” Id.

2026For step two of a Batson analysis, “if a prima facie showing of discrimination is made, the burden shifts to the proponent of the strike to articulate a race-neutral explanation for the challenge.” Nelson, 2010-1724 at p. 9, 85 So. 3d at 29 . “[T]he trial court must then determine if the opponent of the strike has carried the ultimate burden of proving purposeful discrimination.” Id.

2022State v. Tilley, 99-0569, (La. 7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 21 ; see also, State v. Potter, 591 So.2d 1166, 1168-69 (La. 1991) (failure to make Batson objection waived issue on appeal); State v. Spencer, 446 So.2d 1197, 1200 (La. 1984) (review of improper 17 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 22-KA-191 22 exclusion of blacks from jury not preserved for appeal).

2020State v. Tilley, 99-0569, p.17, n.10 (La. 7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 21 ; see also, State v. Potter, 591 So.2d 1166, 1168-69 (La.1991) (failure to make Batson objection waived issue on appeal); State v. Spencer, 446 So.2d 1197, 1200 (La. 1984) (review of improper exclusion of blacks from jury not preserved for appeal); State v. Whitt, 404 So.2d 254, 260 (La.1981) (objection to failure to sequester jury at an earlier time waived); and State v. Bazile, 386 So.2d 349, 351 (La.1980) (improper procedure for selecting venire not reviewable where objection was made after jury was sworn). 5 In assignment o

2019As the Supreme Court explained in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 347 (2003),1 when ruling on a Batson claim, “[w]e adhere to the proposition that a state court need not make detailed findings addressing all the evidence before it.” In a similar vein, in Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (on which the majority relies for other propositions), the Supreme Court explained that when a trial court considers a Batson claim, the circumstances may dictate at the third step that the trial court refer back to the second step.

2019As the Supreme Court explained in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 347 (2003),1 when ruling on a Batson claim, “[w]e adhere to the proposition that a state court need not make detailed findings addressing all the evidence before it.” In a similar vein, in Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (on which the majority relies for other propositions), the Supreme Court explained that when a trial court considers a Batson claim, the circumstances may dictate at the third step that the trial court refer back to the second step.

2018Step three of the Batson inquiry involves an evaluation of the prosecutor’s credibility, see 476 U.S., at 98, n. 21 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , and “the best evidence [of discriminatory intent] often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge,” Hernandez, 500 U.S., at 365 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 (plurality opinion).

2018Step three of the Batson inquiry involves an evaluation of the prosecutor’s credibility, see 476 U.S., at 98, n. 21 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , and “the best evidence [of discriminatory intent] often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge,” Hernandez, 500 U.S., at 365 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 (plurality opinion).

2019"To withhold in the trial court a fact-specific argument in support of a Batson challenge carries with it all of the unfairness of holding challenges until 'trial has concluded unsatisfactorily,' and ought not to be permitted or encouraged." Delvalle v. Herbert , 2004 WL 1661075 (U.S. S.D.N.Y. 2004), quoting McCrory v. Henderson , 82 F.3d 1243 , 1249, 1247 (2nd Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Forbes , 816 F.2d 1006 , 1011 (5th Cir. 1987) ).

2019"To withhold in the trial court a fact-specific argument in support of a Batson challenge carries with it all of the unfairness of holding challenges until 'trial has concluded unsatisfactorily,' and ought not to be permitted or encouraged." Delvalle v. Herbert , 2004 WL 1661075 (U.S. S.D.N.Y. 2004), quoting McCrory v. Henderson , 82 F.3d 1243 , 1249, 1247 (2nd Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Forbes , 816 F.2d 1006 , 1011 (5th Cir. 1987) ).

2016This practice does not 32 See Williams v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 2156, 2156 (2016) (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor concurred with a remand for further evaluating a Batson claim, citing inter alia Elie, 05- 1569, 936 So. 2d 791 ).

2016This practice does not 32 See Williams v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 2156, 2156 (2016) (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor concurred with a remand for further evaluating a Batson claim, citing inter alia Elie, 05- 1569, 936 So. 2d 791 ).

2018The state’s remaining argument regarding the ultimate outcome of the Batson inquiry runs afoul of Snyder v. Louisiana, 522 U.S. 472 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008), which is dispositive here.

2018The state’s remaining argument regarding the ultimate outcome of the Batson inquiry runs afoul of Snyder v. Louisiana, 522 U.S. 472 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008), which is dispositive here.

2014Under Knighten , the Fourth Circuit requires “the prosecutor [who] uses prior arrest records as a purported race-neutral reason in response to a Batson claim ... [to] provide the defense attorney with evidence of those records, if the defense attorney requests further proof of the prior arrest, and that the arrest records be furnished to the trial judge and be put on the record.” 609 So.2d at 957 .

2014Under Knighten , the Fourth Circuit requires “the prosecutor [who] uses prior arrest records as a purported race-neutral reason in response to a Batson claim ... [to] provide the defense attorney with evidence of those records, if the defense attorney requests further proof of the prior arrest, and that the arrest records be furnished to the trial judge and be put on the record.” 609 So.2d at 957 .

2021The Court explained, Although a trial judge does not make a determination of the credibility and persuasiveness of the prosecutor’s stated race-neutral reasons until the third and final step of a Batson analysis, which was not reached in the case here, we nevertheless gain comfort in the appropriateness of our decision by our review of the type of factors which would support the ultimate finding of purposeful discrimination denounced in Miller-El[, 545 U.S. 231 , 125 S.Ct. 2317 ].

2021The Court explained, Although a trial judge does not make a determination of the credibility and persuasiveness of the prosecutor’s stated race-neutral reasons until the third and final step of a Batson analysis, which was not reached in the case here, we nevertheless gain comfort in the appropriateness of our decision by our review of the type of factors which would support the ultimate finding of purposeful discrimination denounced in Miller-El[, 545 U.S. 231 , 125 S.Ct. 2317 ].

2021As the Louisiana Supreme Court has noted, a defendant satisfies the first requirement of a Batson challenge “by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 25 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, 603 (quoting Johnson, 545 U.S. at 170 ). “[I]f such an inference cannot be drawn from the evidence presented by the defendant, he is unable to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination and his Batson challenge expires at the threshold.” State v. Williams, 13-0283, pp. 16-17 (La.

2021As the Louisiana Supreme Court has noted, a defendant satisfies the first requirement of a Batson challenge “by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 25 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, 603 (quoting Johnson, 545 U.S. at 170 ). “[I]f such an inference cannot be drawn from the evidence presented by the defendant, he is unable to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination and his Batson challenge expires at the threshold.” State v. Williams, 13-0283, pp. 16-17 (La.

2021As the Louisiana Supreme Court has noted, a defendant satisfies the first requirement of a Batson challenge “by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 25 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, 603 (quoting Johnson, 545 U.S. at 170 ). “[I]f such an inference cannot be drawn from the evidence presented by the defendant, he is unable to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination and his Batson challenge expires at the threshold.” State v. Williams, 13-0283, pp. 16-17 (La.

2021As the Louisiana Supreme Court has noted, a defendant satisfies the first requirement of a Batson challenge “by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” State v. Draughn, 05-1825, p. 25 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, 603 (quoting Johnson, 545 U.S. at 170 ). “[I]f such an inference cannot be drawn from the evidence presented by the defendant, he is unable to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination and his Batson challenge expires at the threshold.” State v. Williams, 13-0283, pp. 16-17 (La.

2018Williams III , 13-0283, p. 17, 199 So.3d at 1233 ; See also , Duncan , 99-2615, p. 12 , 802 So.2d at 544 (quoting State v. Green , 94-0887, p. 28 (La. 5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272 , 290, n. 24 ), (where the court explained if an inference cannot be drawn from the evidence presented by the defendant, " 'he is unable to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination and his Batson challenge expires at the threshold.' ").

2016When the district court finds the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination (step one), the Batson analysis terminates; the burden of production “never shifts to the prosecutor to articulate neutral reasons (step two).” Duncan, 99-2615, p. 13, 802 So.2d at 544 ; see also State v. Seals, 09-1089, p. 24 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/29/11), 83 So.3d 285, 312, n. 47 (noting that “[t]he second and third steps of the Batson analysis are not reached because the trial judge did not find a prima facie case was made with regard to any of the potential jurors in question.”).

2018"Although the mere presence of African American jurors does not necessarily defeat a Batson claim, the unanimity requirement of a capital case sentencing recommendation may be considered." State v. Tart , 1993-0772 p. 18 (La. 2/9/96), 672 So.2d 116 , 141, cert. denied , 519 U.S. 934 , 117 S.Ct. 310 , 136 L.Ed.2d 227 (1996).

2018"Although the mere presence of African American jurors does not necessarily defeat a Batson claim, the unanimity requirement of a capital case sentencing recommendation may be considered." State v. Tart , 1993-0772 p. 18 (La. 2/9/96), 672 So.2d 116 , 141, cert. denied , 519 U.S. 934 , 117 S.Ct. 310 , 136 L.Ed.2d 227 (1996).

2016Subsequently, after the trial court articulated reasons for the state’s peremptory challenges relative to these seven potential jurors, the trial court found “there is no prima facie showing at all as to systematic exclusion on the basis of race by the State’s exercise of its peremptory challenges.” Notwithstanding the latter ruling, the trial court later stated that it would “allow” counsel for the state, if he wished, “to justify or state for the record its race neutral ... reasons,” concluding “but those are my rulings.” 27 The prosecutor declined the trial court’s invitation relative to de

2016Subsequently, after the trial court articulated reasons for the state’s peremptory challenges relative to these seven potential jurors, the trial court found “there is no prima facie showing at all as to systematic exclusion on the basis of race by the State’s exercise of its peremptory challenges.” Notwithstanding the latter ruling, the trial court later stated that it would “allow” counsel for the state, if he wished, “to justify or state for the record its race neutral … reasons,” concluding “but those are my rulings.”27 The prosecutor declined the trial court’s invitation relative to defen

2010In State v. Snyder, 98-1078, p. 7 (La.9/6/06), 942 So.2d 484, 489 , rev’d on other grounds, 552 U.S. 472 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (quoting Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338 , 126 S.Ct. 969, 973-74 , 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006)), our supreme court set forth the process established by the Supreme Court to guide courts in the examination of peremptory challenges for constitutional infirmities: A defendant’s Batson challenge to a peremptory strike requires a three-step inquiry.

2010In State v. Snyder, 98-1078, p. 7 (La.9/6/06), 942 So.2d 484, 489 , rev’d on other grounds, 552 U.S. 472 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (quoting Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338 , 126 S.Ct. 969, 973-74 , 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006)), our supreme court set forth the process established by the Supreme Court to guide courts in the examination of peremptory challenges for constitutional infirmities: A defendant’s Batson challenge to a peremptory strike requires a three-step inquiry.

2013For instance, “[b]ody language has been held to constitute a valid, race-neutral basis for defeating a Batson claim.” State v. Coleman, 06-518, p. 6 (La.11/2/07), 970 So.2d 511, 515 .

2013For instance, “[b]ody language has been held to constitute a valid, race-neutral basis for defeating a Batson claim.” State v. Coleman, 06-518, p. 6 (La.11/2/07), 970 So.2d 511, 515 .

2017Batson, supra. 13 In Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 , 126 S.Ct. 969 , 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006), the Court described the three-step Batson process as follows: A defendant’s Batson challenge to a peremptory strike requires a three-step inquiry.

2017Batson, supra. 13 In Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 , 126 S.Ct. 969 , 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006), the Court described the three-step Batson process as follows: A defendant’s Batson challenge to a peremptory strike requires a three-step inquiry.

2018The Supreme Court found that "[f]rom the record, it appears the trial judge simply ignored any claim of a Batson violation." Id. , 99-1803, p. 6, 761 So.2d at 502 .

2018The Supreme Court found that "[f]rom the record, it appears the trial judge simply ignored any claim of a Batson violation." Id. , 99-1803, p. 6, 761 So.2d at 502 .

2022State v. Tilley, 99-0569, (La. 7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 21 ; see also, State v. Potter, 591 So.2d 1166, 1168-69 (La. 1991) (failure to make Batson objection waived issue on appeal); State v. Spencer, 446 So.2d 1197, 1200 (La. 1984) (review of improper 17 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 22-KA-191 22 exclusion of blacks from jury not preserved for appeal).

2020State v. Tilley, 99-0569, p.17, n.10 (La. 7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 21 ; see also, State v. Potter, 591 So.2d 1166, 1168-69 (La.1991) (failure to make Batson objection waived issue on appeal); State v. Spencer, 446 So.2d 1197, 1200 (La. 1984) (review of improper exclusion of blacks from jury not preserved for appeal); State v. Whitt, 404 So.2d 254, 260 (La.1981) (objection to failure to sequester jury at an earlier time waived); and State v. Bazile, 386 So.2d 349, 351 (La.1980) (improper procedure for selecting venire not reviewable where objection was made after jury was sworn). 5 In assignment o

1993In 1988, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Williams, 524 So.2d 746 (La.1988) determined that the language in Batson, supra, suggests that the "ruling on the objection must be made at some time before the completion of the jury panel." In State v. Lamark, 584 So.2d 686 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1991), the court stated that "for a Batson objection to be timely it must be entered before the regular panel members of the jury are sworn ..." Lamark , at 695.

1991NOTES [1] In this case, the defendant was tried well before our decision in State v. Williams, 524 So.2d 746 (La.1988) (per curiam), wherein we made clear that a defendant wishing to raise a Batson claim must comply with the contemporaneous objection rule and make known his complaint during jury selection or waive the claim. [2] The Supreme Court issued its decision in Batson fifteen days later on April 30, 1986. [3] Defendant Potter is, himself, black. [4] The rule provides that [a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence..

2014In State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.01/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, 600 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1012 , 128 S.Ct. 537 , 169 L.Ed.2d 377 (2007), the proper reviewing process for a Batson claim, as recently described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 , 126 S.Ct. 969 , 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006), was set forth as follows: A defendant’s Batson challenge to a peremptory strike requires a three-step inquiry.

2014In State v. Draughn, 05-1825 (La.01/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, 600 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1012 , 128 S.Ct. 537 , 169 L.Ed.2d 377 (2007), the proper reviewing process for a Batson claim, as recently described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 , 126 S.Ct. 969 , 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006), was set forth as follows: A defendant’s Batson challenge to a peremptory strike requires a three-step inquiry.