In re A.S.
2016 IL App (1st) 161259
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Minor A.S. (Black) was adjudicated delinquent after a jury trial for residential burglary; he appealed claiming Batson violations during jury selection.
- Over two days, the State challenged for cause one Black venireperson and used peremptories to remove four Black prospective jurors (Addie M., Madelyn B., Connie T., and Rita J.); one Black juror (Joe W.) was accepted after disclosing a prior DUI.
- Early peremptories removed three Black prospective jurors in succession; the court initially found no prima facie Batson case but later, sua sponte, found a prima facie case after the State struck Rita J. and required the State to proffer reasons.
- The State gave race-neutral reasons for some strikes (e.g., DCFS/social-work employment, adverse experiences with police, criminal history), but did not offer any reason for the peremptory used against Connie T.
- The trial court accepted many of the State’s justifications without a full third-stage credibility evaluation, at times interposed its own factual comparisons, and made statements reflecting an incorrect legal standard for Batson.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded for a new Batson hearing within 60 days, finding multiple procedural errors in the stage-two and stage-three Batson process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s use of peremptories violated Batson | State struck all/most Black venirepersons and made disparate use of peremptories; prima facie case established | State asserted race-neutral reasons (criminal history, social-work bias, adverse police experiences) and noted it struck jurors of other races too | Remanded for new Batson hearing; appellate court found prima facie case established and trial court’s Batson inquiry was inadequate |
| Whether the trial court properly conducted Batson step two (proffer) | Court failed to require race-neutral reasons for Connie T. and accepted proffers without probing comparators | Court and State treated proffers as facially race-neutral | Reversed: trial court erred by not eliciting/examining race-neutral reasons for all challenged Black venirepersons (Connie T.) |
| Whether the trial court properly conducted Batson step three (credibility/evaluation) | Court accepted State reasons without a sincere, reasoned evaluation or comparison across the voir dire record | Court believed reasons sufficed and relied on its own factual distinctions | Reversed: court failed to undertake a proper credibility-based, contextual analysis required at step three |
| Whether trial court applied correct legal standard | Court’s remarks invoked improper standards (endorsed dissent, said lawyers can exclude based on dislike) | Court defended discretion in peremptory use | Reversed: court applied incorrect Batson law; its remarks undermined impartial stage-three review |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (establishes three-step framework forbidding race-based peremptory strikes)
- People v. Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d 481 (2006) (factors for prima facie Batson determination and guidance on record when court acts sua sponte)
- People v. Davis, 231 Ill. 2d 349 (2008) (defendant’s opportunity to show pretext and burden allocation in Batson process)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (demeanor of the attorney is relevant to credibility in Batson analysis)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006) (ultimate burden of persuasion on opponent of strike never shifts)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (per curiam: race-neutral reasons need not be persuasive, but court must assess pretext)
- People v. Wiley, 156 Ill. 2d 464 (1993) (trial court must apply correct Batson standards; improper standards warrant remand)
- People v. Mack, 128 Ill. 2d 231 (1989) (employment in social work is a legitimate race-neutral ground for a peremptory challenge)
- People v. Crockett, 314 Ill. App. 3d 389 (2000) (court cannot supply reasons for proponent’s peremptory challenge; State must produce reasons)
- People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227 (2004) (subjective assessments of juror demeanor require close scrutiny)