Ray-Simmons & McGouldrick v. State
132 A.3d 275
| Md. | 2016Background
- Petitioners Ray-Simmons and McGouldrick were tried jointly for murder-related offenses; convicted of second-degree murder and related counts; convictions affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals; this Court granted certiorari on a Batson issue and reversed.
- During jury selection the State exercised five peremptory strikes, all against African-American men; defense counsel objected arguing a pattern of race-and-gender-based strikes.
- The prosecutor gave reasons for four of the strikes (youth, unemployment, family criminal history, difficulty with numbers) but, regarding Juror 4583, said only: “I intended to replace him with another black male.”
- Trial court declined to find a prima facie Batson violation; jury was accepted (one defendant expressly accepted the panel; the Court majority found preservation based on a pretrial ruling that objections by one defense counsel would be deemed made by others).
- The Court analyzed the Batson three-step framework and held the prosecutor’s explanation for striking Juror 4583 was neither sufficiently specific nor race- and gender-neutral, requiring a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Batson applies and was preserved | Petitioners: prosecutor struck jurors based on race/gender; objected when State removed five African‑American men; preserved via joined objection | State: no preservation (panel accepted); even if preserved, prosecutor’s explanations were race/gender neutral and no prima facie case | Court: Batson applies; objections were preserved (pretrial rule and joining); prima facie shown by pattern of five strikes and State’s explanations moved inquiry to step two |
| Whether prosecutor’s explanations satisfied Batson step two | Petitioners: explanations must be clear and reasonably specific for each strike; statement substituting “another black male” is non‑explanation and racially/gender motivated | State: remark merely contested prima facie showing or was not intended as explanatory; other stated reasons suffice | Court: explanation for Juror 4583 was insufficient and non‑neutral (explicitly referenced race and gender), violating Batson |
| Whether trial court erred in not finding purposeful discrimination at step three | Petitioners: third-step credibility inquiry required and prosecutor’s facially discriminatory remark undermines credibility | State: trial judge’s factual observations entitled to deference; no clear error | Court: because step two failed as to Juror 4583, court reversed; no deference can cure a facially non‑neutral, non‑specific explanation |
| Appropriate remedy for Batson violation | Petitioners: new trial is required because reconstructing voir dire years later is impracticable and prosecutor offered the explanation at trial | State: limited remand could suffice to reconstruct explanations | Court: new trial ordered (passage of time and prosecutor’s trial‑time explanations make limited remand inappropriate) |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibiting peremptory strikes based on race and announcing the three‑step framework)
- Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (peremptory‑challenge explanation must be clear and reasonably specific)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (burden‑shifting structure; facial validity at step two)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (clarifying Batson step analysis and role of trial court)
- J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (prohibiting peremptory strikes based on gender)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (prima facie standard: inference of discriminatory purpose from totality of facts)
- Edmonds v. State, 372 Md. 314 (Maryland discussion of Batson steps and remedies)
- Tyler v. State, 330 Md. 261 (gender‑based peremptory strikes violate state constitutional principles)
- Chew v. State, 317 Md. 233 (each strike requires explanation)
- Stanley v. State, 313 Md. 50 (prima facie threshold not onerous; patterns may establish prima facie case)