In re A.S.
2016 IL App (1st) 161259
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- A.S., a Black juvenile charged with residential burglary, was tried by jury after being charged under the habitual-juvenile-offender provision.
- During two-day jury selection, the State struck several Black venirepersons: one (Charles H.) was struck for cause for failing to disclose criminal history; three Black women (Addie M., Madelyn B., Connie T.) were struck by peremptory challenge on day one.
- Respondent counsel raised a Batson challenge after the three peremptories; the trial court initially found no prima facie case and the prosecutor said she routinely struck jurors (of any race) who failed to disclose arrests.
- On day two the State accepted Joe W., a Black juror who had failed to disclose a 2003 DUI, and later used a peremptory to strike Rita J., a Black former DCFS therapist; the court then sua sponte found a prima facie Batson case and asked the State for race-neutral reasons.
- The State gave explanations (e.g., social-work background, adverse feelings about police, criminal history) for some strikes; the court accepted them largely without detailed third-stage analysis, failed to elicit any race-neutral reason for the strike of Connie T., and in places usurped the prosecutor’s role.
- The appellate court concluded the trial court’s Batson second- and third-stage proceedings were deficient (court accepted explanations without adequate evaluation, made incorrect legal remarks, and failed to require reasons for at least one peremptory) and remanded for a new Batson hearing within 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prima facie Batson case was made | State argued no pattern of race-based strikes; claimed neutral practice of striking nondisclosing jurors | A.S. argued pattern/disproportionate strikes against Black venirepersons and underrepresentation on jury | Court: Record showed sufficient factors (pattern, disproportion, venire vs jury composition) to establish prima facie case |
| Whether State met its step-two burden to give race-neutral reasons for all challenged Black jurors | State offered reasons (social work, adverse views of police, criminal history) for several strikes; accepted some jurors with similar backgrounds | A.S. argued reasons were pretextual, inconsistent (e.g., accepted Joe W. despite nondisclosure), and State didn’t give reasons for Connie T. | Court: State failed to articulate reasons for at least one strike (Connie T.); other proffered reasons were accepted by trial court but without sufficient analysis — remand required |
| Whether the trial court conducted a proper step-three credibility evaluation of the State’s justifications | State contended the court properly evaluated and found reasons race-neutral | A.S. argued the court gave cursory/erroneous rulings, interposed its own factual comparisons, and applied incorrect legal standards | Court: Trial court’s third-stage evaluation was inadequate and influenced by incorrect legal remarks; remand for full Batson inquiry ordered |
| Whether the trial judge’s statements and conduct required remand | State argued no reversible error; overall outcome unaffected | A.S. stressed judge’s remarks (follow dissent, “I don’t like the way that guy is looking at me”) showed misapprehension of Batson law and improper intervention | Court: Judge’s statements were legal errors and, together with other deficiencies, warranted remand for further Batson proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (establishes three-step framework prohibiting race-based peremptory strikes)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (demeanor of the attorney exercising the strike is relevant to credibility at Batson stage three)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (Sup. Ct. 1995) (burden of persuasion on racial motivation remains with challenger)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (ultimate burden of persuasion and deference to trial-court credibility findings)
- People v. Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d 481 (Ill. 2006) (factors for evaluating prima facie Batson showing; guidance on sua sponte Batson proceedings)
- People v. Davis, 231 Ill. 2d 349 (Ill. 2008) (discusses Batson burden-shifting and pretext inquiry)
- People v. Wiley, 156 Ill. 2d 464 (Ill. 1993) (State must articulate race-neutral reasons for each challenged juror)
- People v. Mack, 128 Ill. 2d 231 (Ill. 1989) (employment in social work can be a race-neutral basis for peremptory challenge)
- People v. Crockett, 314 Ill. App. 3d 389 (Ill. App. 2000) (court may not supply the State’s step-two reasons; remand required when trial court relies on its own rationale)