Siegel v. State, 68 So. 3d 281

Siegel charged with knowingly using the internet to seduce a minor under Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3) (2002) over nine months in 2003.
State sought to admit Williams Act similar-crimes evidence from Pennsylvania and St. Lucie County investigations.
During jury selection, court disallowed defense peremptory strikes of two female jurors with gender-neutral reasons.
Cross-examination about St. Lucie County defense tactics was allowed after Siegel testified the charges were dismissed.
Siegel testified the ‘Monica’ chats were with adults and presented a ‘fantasy’ defense about imaginary online identities.
Court reversed for a new trial due to peremptory-strike error and barred improper cross-examination and limited discovery ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying peremptory strikes	Siegel	Siegel	Reversed for new trial; genuineness analysis required
Whether the court properly analyzed genuineness of gender-neutral strikes	Siegel	Siegel	Remand for new trial; analysis lacking
Whether cross-exam questioning about St. Lucie County defense opened the door	Siegel	Siegel	Reversed for new trial; opening-the-door ruling improper
Whether Siegel was entitled to inspect the Boynton Beach hard drive	Siegel	Siegel	Affirmed denial of full hard-drive discovery; no abuse found
Whether the court properly limited discovery under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(f)	Siegel	Siegel	Affirmed; no materiality shown to compel broader production

Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla.1996) (three-part peremptory-challenge framework; genuineness analysis guidance)
Jones v. State, 787 So.2d 154 (Fla.4th DCA 2001) (genuineness analysis required when neutral reasons given; failure to analyze pretext)
Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So.2d 784 (Fla.1992) (neutral reasons for strikes; reasons not applicable to others; pretext considerations)
Cullen v. State, 920 So.2d 1155 (Fla.4th DCA 2006) (opening the door when testimony is misleading; undue expansion of cross-examination)