 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blackwell v. State2/12/2003
. 471 (2001). If the petitioner makes such a prima facie showing, the State must then articulate a race-neutral reason for the challenge. Id. At that point, the trial court must determine whether purposeful discrimination has been proven. Id. We note that " ecause the core issue is the prosecutor's discriminatory intent, or lack thereof, the trial court's finding `largely will turn on evaluation of credibility.'" State v. Ellison, 841 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tenn. 1992) (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 21, 106 S. Ct. 1724 n. 21). " n appeal, the trial court's finding that the State excused a venire member for race-neutral reasons will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous." State v. Carroll, 34 S.W.3d 317, 320 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
At the petitioner's trial, Taylor raised an objection after the State challenged a second black juror. In response, the trial court observed that the State had challenged two white jurors and two black jurors. The trial court stated that it saw no reason to ask the State to explain the challenges, implicitly ruling that the petitioner failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. The court observed that it would not require an explanation unless "we see . . . something developing that looks like a racial thing. . . . I see no pattern here developing." Regardless, the State explained the challenges by stating that
ne of those two individuals we put in the workhouse for child support payments. That was the main reason we challenged him. And the other one, there's something on the police record. I can't remember what it is right now. But he sat on some other juries, and I just don't think he's been a very good juror. That's the reason we challenged the other juror.
The State further assured the trial court that it was not challenging jurors on the basis of race.
The petitioner argues that the trial court improperly required a "pattern" of challenges in order to find a prima facie case of discrimination. We agree that proof of a pattern of discrimination is not a prerequisite to prove a Batson violation. See State v. Theddaeus Medford, No. W2001-02930-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 141049, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Jan. 14, 2003). However, even if the petitioner made a prima facie showing of discrimination, the trial court was satisfied that the State offered race-neutral explanations for the challenges. Thus, trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to pursue the issue. Moreover, trial counsel determined that there was no merit to the Batson issue and therefore did not pursue the issue in a motion for new trial. Despite the petitioner's argument that a white juror who had a previous DUI conviction was unchallenged, no proof exists in the record that the State was aware that juror also had a criminal record. Additionally, the State also explained that one juror was challenged because of the State's experience with that juror from previous trials. See State v. Mark Lee Dale, No. M2001-01205-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1204933, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 5, 2002). We conclude that the petitioner has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that counsel were deficient on this issue, nor has he shown that he suffered any prejudice from counsel's failure to pursue the Batson issue.
The petitioner also claims counsel were ineffective "by not advising [the petitioner] of the in camera Batson hearing, effectively denying him the chance to have a full hearing on it to challenge the State's position, to include this issue in the Motion for New Trial and to have it reviewed by appellate court for error." However, as we noted earlier, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he suffered prejudice
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|