10-2734 U.S. v. Rutledge

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Voir dire; equal protection

Where the district court made no factual findings regarding the prosecutor’s stated reasons for striking African-American jurors, the case must be remanded.

“[A] remand is necessary for the district court to make explicit credibility findings for both jurors. For Martin, this outcome is required by McMath and Taylor. The prosecutor’s race-neutral reason was that Martin ‘appeared agitated and also frustrated’ throughout voir dire. Defense counsel responded appropriately by conceding that the demeanor-based reason was facially race-neutral, see McMath, 559 F.3d at 665; United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 1996), while asserting that it was pretextual. Disturbingly, in the colloquy that followed the district court never once credited the demeanor-based reason for the prosecutor’s peremptory strike. The court merely repeated that the demeanor-based justification was a ‘nonracial-related reason.’ But everyone already knew that this was true, as a facial matter; the court never resolved the key questions. The trial court ‘must evaluate not only whether the prosecutor’s demeanor belies a discriminatory intent, but also whether the juror’s demeanor can credibly be said to have exhibited the basis for the strike attributed to the juror by the prosecutor.’ Snyder, 552 U.S. at 477. These findings must be explicit; without them there is a void that stymies appellate review, gives us no finding of fact to which we might defer, and ultimately precludes us from affirming the denial of the Batson challenge. McMath, 559 F.3d at 665-66; Taylor, 509 F.3d at 845.”

Remanded.

10-2734 U.S. v. Rutledge

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, McKinney, J., Wood, J.

Full Text