Cook v. State
104 So. 3d 1187
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Two juries were selected from a single panel with the same prosecutor; jurors 9 and 37 were African-American and peremptory challenges were used against them in different cases.
- For juror 37, the state stated he was hesitant and disinterested; for juror 9, the state stated she was a nurse and thus unfit to serve.
- The defense requested race-neutral explanations and the state provided reasons (hesitancy for juror 37; nurse for juror 9) but did not connect these facts to any genuine ability to serve.
- The trial court sustained the peremptory strikes without conducting a Melbourne step-three genuineness analysis.
- The appellate court held that the trial court failed to conduct the required genuineness inquiry and reversed the convictions, remanding for a new trial.
- Relevant authorities were cited to explain the three-step Melbourne framework and its application to race-based peremptory challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court perform the Melbourne genuineness analysis? | Leverage argues the court failed Melbourne step three. | State contends reasons were race-neutral and sufficient. | No; trial court did not conduct a genuine analysis. |
| Should the convictions be reversed and remanded given the error? | Remand is required to cure the constitutional defect. | Unclear if retrial would be necessary. | Convictions reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla.1996) (establishes three-step procedure for racially charged peremptory challenges; focus on genuineness of reasons)
- Hayes v. State, 94 So.3d 452 (Fla.2012) (articulates Melbourne framework and pretext analysis)
- Mayes v. State, 550 So.2d 496 (Fla.4th DCA 1989) (notes need to question juror regarding impact of occupation on jury service)
- Hernandez v. State, 686 So.2d 735 (Fla.2d DCA 1997) (occupation alone may be pretextual if not linked to ability to serve)
- Simmons v. State, 940 So.2d 580 (Fla.1st DCA 2006) (cannot assume genuineness without examining surrounding circumstances)
- Cobb v. State, 825 So.2d 1080 (Fla.4th DCA 2002) (peremptory challenges presumed nondiscriminatory; credibility essential)
- Crews v. State, 921 So.2d 864 (Fla.4th DCA 2006) (perfunctory examination factors in evaluating pretext)
- State v. Sloppy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.1988) (pretext inquiry informs race-based strikes)