2021 IL App (1st) 191108
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Valen Little was convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault after a second jury trial; he received two consecutive 10‑year terms.
- During voir dire 35 venirepersons were questioned; six were African American. Only one African American (Addo) served on the jury; Isby, an African American venireperson, was removed by the State via peremptory strike without explanation.
- Two non‑African American jurors (Ivanova and Quezada) had very similar backgrounds to Isby (employment, family status, no criminal/jury experience) and were seated.
- On postconviction review Little, pro se, alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Batson challenge to the State’s peremptory strike of Isby; the circuit court summarily dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without merit.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding Little made an arguable prima facie Batson showing (given the totality of circumstances), that counsel was arguably deficient for not objecting, and that prejudice from failure to raise Batson is presumed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Little) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Little’s pro se petition states an arguable ineffective‑assistance claim for failing to raise a Batson objection to the State’s peremptory strike of Isby | The petition was frivolous: the record shows the State struck only one Black juror and did not demonstrate a pattern or disproportionate use of strikes; Little didn’t specifically identify Isby in his petition | Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Isby’s peremptory removal; Isby shared characteristics with seated jurors and the record contains no race‑neutral basis for the strike | Reversed: petition alleges an arguable Batson claim; counsel arguably deficient; proceed under the Act |
| Whether Little forfeited the Batson theory by not naming Isby or attaching her voir dire transcript to the petition | The claim is forfeited because the petition named only two venirepersons (Maruffo and Mogobo) and did not attach Isby’s voir dire | Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed; alleging that counsel failed to challenge ‘‘all’’ African American venirepersons reasonably includes Isby | Held not forfeited: liberal construction permits consideration of Isby and the record contains Isby’s voir dire |
| Whether Little showed Strickland prejudice from counsel’s failure to raise Batson | Little cannot show a reasonable probability the outcome would differ because the court might have accepted race‑neutral reasons | Racial discrimination in jury selection is structural; in the Strickland context prejudice from failing to raise a Batson objection should be presumed | Held prejudice is presumed (citing Seventh Circuit authority); petitioner may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory strikes based solely on race violate Equal Protection)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Winston v. Boatright, 649 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2011) (when counsel fails to raise a Batson objection, Strickland prejudice may be presumed)
- Hodges v. People, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (first‑stage postconviction review: pleadings taken as true; dismissal only if frivolous or patently without merit)
- People v. Davis, 345 Ill. App. 3d 901 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (acceptance of jurors who share traits with a struck African‑American juror supports an inference of racial discrimination)
- People v. Williams, 173 Ill. 2d 48 (Ill. 1996) (enumerates factors and totality‑of‑circumstances approach for Batson prima facie showing)