Hardison v. State, 2012 Miss. LEXIS 383

Hardison was charged with armed robbery and, during jury selection, defense used a peremptory strike against a white veniremember; the State raised a Batson challenge.
The trial judge required a race-neutral reason for striking the white veniremembers; Hardison proffered that Gray had previously served on a criminal jury and regretted not reaching a verdict, suggesting possible pro-prosecution bias.
The judge found Gray’s reason not race-neutral and denied the peremptory strike; the jury panel ended up with six Black and six White jurors; Hardison was convicted.
Hardison appealed, raising nine issues but the court treated the Batson-based denial of the peremptory strike as dispositive and addressed a speedy-trial claim first.
The court analyzed the speedy-trial claim under Barker v. Wingo and held the 833-day delay between indictment and trial was not a constitutional violation.
The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by denying Hardison’s peremptory strike without a proper Batson analysis and reversed for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Batson analysis applied to Gray strike	Hardison argued the defense race-neutral reason was pretext and Batson steps were not properly followed.	State contended the reason was race-neutral and the court correctly evaluated pretext.	Reversible error; Batson analysis not properly completed.
Speedy-trial constitutional violation	Indictment to trial delay of 833 days presumptively prejudicial under Barker.	Delay largely attributable to Hardison; Barker factors weigh in State’s favor.	Not violated; Barker factors do not show denial of right to speedy trial.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (cannot exclude jurors on the basis of race)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (U.S. 2009) (erroneous denial of peremptory challenge may not always require automatic reversal)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (second and third Batson prongs distinguished; race-neutral reason need not be persuasive)
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (standing to challenge peremptory strikes extends beyond defendant’s race)
Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228 (Miss. 1995) (notes race-neutral reasons include age, demeanor, employment, etc.)
Birkhead v. State, 57 So.3d 1223 (Miss. 2011) (cannot override trial court without knowing venire’s racial makeup)
Robinson v. State, 761 So.2d 209 (Miss. 2000) (on-record, fact-based determinations required for Batson third prong)