992 N.W.2d 641
Iowa Ct. App.2023Background
- Matthew Ford was convicted of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse after a jury trial and appealed.
- During jury selection the State used seven peremptory challenges and struck five men, resulting in a jury of eleven women and one man.
- Ford lodged a race-based Batson objection during voir dire to one strike (overruled) but did not raise his gender-based J.E.B. objection until the morning after voir dire, after the non-juror panel members had been dismissed.
- The district court overruled Ford’s post-dismissal J.E.B. objections and the trial proceeded; Ford appealed only the timeliness/merits of the gender-based peremptory challenge claim.
- The Court of Appeals held Ford waived the gender-based objection because it was raised after the remaining panel members were discharged and thus untimely; the court affirmed without reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When must a Batson/J.E.B. objection be raised to preserve error? | State: objection must be made before the remaining panel members are dismissed (or at latest before the venire is excused). | Ford: his J.E.B. objection (made the next morning, before jury sworn) was timely and preserved the claim. | The objection was untimely because it was raised after the non-juror panel members were discharged; Ford waived the claim and appeal is affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes)
- J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (extends Batson to gender-based strikes and requires prima facie showing)
- Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411 (observed it is sensible to deem Batson objections untimely if raised after jury sworn or on appeal)
- State v. Plain, 969 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa discussion of jury-selection terminology)
- State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330 (Iowa case recognizing untimeliness of post-trial panel challenges)
- United States v. Clark, 409 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. holding Batson/J.E.B. untimely if not raised before venire dismissed)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Henkel, 689 A.2d 1224 (D.C. Ct. App. reasoning that post-dismissal objections preclude remedies and impair fact-finding)
- United States v. Parham, 16 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. requirement that Batson be raised before venire dismissed)
- Morning v. Zapata Protein (USA), Inc., 128 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. collecting authorities requiring timely Batson objections)
- United States v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. requiring objection before venire dismissed and trial commences)
- United States v. Reid, 764 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. holding Batson challenges must be raised contemporaneously with voir dire or before venire dismissed)
- Bethea v. Commonwealth, 831 S.E.2d 670 (Va. 2019 recognizing practical necessity of contemporaneous objections)
- State v. Cummings, 838 S.W.2d 4 (Mo. Ct. App. rejecting waiting until venire discharged to object)
- State v. Jackson, 494 P.3d 225 (Kan. Ct. App. collecting federal/state precedent and endorsing pre-dismissal rule)