 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. TOMLIN9/5/1989
Heard May 1, 1989.
Decided Sept. 5, 1989.
The sole issue in this case involves the State's use of its peremptory challenges. Tomlin, a black woman, was charged with driving under the influence (second offense). During jury selection, the State exercised four of its peremptory challenges to strike black jurors and one to strike a white juror. Tomlin moved to dismiss the jury and for a mistrial under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), on the ground that the State used its
The State struck one black woman, Ms. Prelau, on the grounds that she walked slow, talked low and was somewhat aged. The Solicitor noted that the previous time this case was tried, it took five hours to try it and seven hours for jury deliberations. He stated that he had doubts as to whether she would be able to withstand the trial and jury deliberation and be aware of what was going on.
The Court responded as follows:
I was aware when she came up. I don't know whether
she's lack of learning or education. I don't know. But I
noticed that she was extremely sluggish. I believe that
if she sat on the jury she'd be what I call a filler. I don't
believe — she didn't respond in a way — I don't know. I
have not looked at what her education is, but let's see
what — let's go over them all.
Defense counsel noted to the court that this juror was only 43 years old.
The State also struck a black man, Mr. William Gordon. The Solicitor gave the following explanation for striking this juror:
From my information, has that one, he is unemployed. I
watched him as he walked from the jury panel to the
microphone and I have noted that he — he shucked and
jived is what I had. That's just my analysis of the way
he walked up here. He seemed disinterested. He started
speaking before he even got to the microphone, Your
Honor. He was looking down at the ground as he was
giving the jury information. (Emphasis added.)
The judge ruled that no pattern of racial discrimination was established and that the justifications articulated by the prosecutor were racially neutral.
DISCUSSION
Prima Facie Case of Discrimination
Tomlin contends that the trial judge erred in failing to find that Tomlin had established a prima facie showing of racial discrimination.
Batson prohibits the State from exercising its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. Under Batson, the trial judge is vested with discretion to determine whether a prima facie case of discrimination against black jurors has been established based upon all relevant circumstances concerning the exercise of the State's peremptory challenges. State v. Smith, 293 S.C. 22, 358 S.E.2d 389 (1987).
A prima facie case is established when the defendant shows that he is a member of a "cognizable racial group," that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove veniremen of the defendant's race, and that the facts and circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges for the purpose of striking minorities. If a prima facie case is established, the state must come forward with a "neutral explanation for challenging black jurors." Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 88.
In the absence of the finding of a prima facie case of discrimination, the trial judge has no duty to hold a Batson hearing. State v. Jones, 293 S.C. 54, 358 S.E.2d 701 (1987). This Court, however, has recommended that the better practice is for trial courts to hold a Batson hearing out of
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|