In re A.S., 2017 IL App (1st) 161259-B

A.S., a 17-year-old African American, was charged with residential burglary; after a jury trial he was adjudicated delinquent and committed to juvenile custody.
During jury selection, the State used multiple peremptory strikes against black veniremembers, prompting a Batson challenge by respondent.
One challenged juror, Connie T. (black), initially failed to disclose a 1977 theft matter; the trial court questioned her in chambers, found her omission an honest mistake, and refused cause dismissal; the State nevertheless used a peremptory against her and had not articulated a race-neutral reason at that time.
Another black veniremember, Joe W., failed to disclose a 2003 DUI; the State at one point sought cause dismissal but ultimately accepted him and did not use a peremptory.
On appeal this court remanded for a proper Batson third-stage hearing because the trial court had collapsed stages and the State had not provided a reason for striking Connie T.; on remand the State asserted it struck Connie T. because it found her demeanor evasive/untruthful.
The appellate court concluded the State’s demeanor-based explanation for Connie T. was pretextual (especially given the court’s prior credibility finding and the inconsistent treatment of Joe W.) and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	State's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the State’s peremptory strike of Connie T. was racially motivated / pretextual under Batson	State: struck Connie T. for a race-neutral reason—her evasive, untruthful demeanor about failing to disclose a theft	Respondent: State’s demeanor explanation is pretextual because the court previously found Connie credible, the State accepted a similarly nondisclosing black juror (Joe W.), and the State did not press for cause dismissal	Held: The State’s proffered reason was pretextual as to Connie T.; Batson violation; reversed and remanded for new trial
Whether the trial court properly evaluated the State’s race-neutral explanations on remand	State: court credited prosecutors’ credibility assessments	Respondent: court failed to reconcile its earlier credibility finding and did not probe the State’s new explanation; court’s acceptance was clearly erroneous	Held: Court failed to sufficiently scrutinize State’s subjective reason; deference to trial-court credibility was not warranted given record inconsistencies

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes)
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (proponent of Batson bears burden of persuasion)
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (deference to trial court credibility findings in Batson third stage)
People v. Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d 481 (prima facie Batson analysis and significance of number of strikes)
People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227 (subjective demeanor-based explanations warrant close scrutiny)
People v. Harris, 129 Ill. 2d 123 (framework for evaluating pretext at Batson third stage)