933 N.W.2d 670
Wis. Ct. App.2019Background
- Malcolm J. Sanders (defendant) was convicted by a jury of two counts of delivering heroin; sentence affirmed on appeal.
- During voir dire the prosecutor asked about prior negative experiences with police; five potential jurors (including the panel’s only two African‑American jurors, Ms. R. and Mr. S.) acknowledged such experiences and expressed some distrust of law enforcement.
- The State used peremptory strikes on five panelists, including Ms. R. and Mr. S.; Sanders objected under Batson, alleging those strikes were race‑based.
- The prosecutor explained she struck jurors who appeared hesitant and likely to view police testimony skeptically; she noted she had also struck a non‑Black juror (Mr. O.) for a similar reason.
- The circuit court credited the prosecutor’s race‑neutral explanation and denied Sanders’ Batson challenge; the court of appeals (majority) affirmed, finding no purposeful discrimination.
- Judge Reilly dissented, arguing that dismissing Black jurors because they reported being racially profiled is itself discriminatory and that Batson/Lamon protections are ineffective when courts defer to such race‑neutral explanations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sanders) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of the only two Black panelists violated Equal Protection under Batson/Lamon | Strikes were race‑neutral: jurors expressed antipolice bias and hesitancy to credit law‑enforcement testimony; similar reason used for a non‑Black juror | Strikes were effectively racially motivated because the Black jurors’ expressed bias derived from being stopped/"Driving While Black," so the reason is not race‑neutral | Affirmed: court found prosecutor’s explanation credible and not a pretext; no purposeful discrimination shown |
| Whether other trial errors (continuance for plea discussions; alleged conflict with counsel) require relief | State does not meaningfully contest; issues were undeveloped | Sanders asserted denial of time to consult counsel re: new co‑defendant statement and alleged choice forced between counsel and jury trial | Not reached substantively by appellate court because Sanders failed to develop arguments; claims deemed forfeited/unpreserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (race‑based peremptory strikes prohibited; three‑step inquiry)
- State v. Lamon, 262 Wis. 2d 747 (Wis. 2003) (adopting Batson framework; appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (2019) (trial judge must assess whether prosecutor’s stated reasons are pretextual)
- United States v. Carter, 111 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 1997) (antipolice sentiment is a race‑neutral basis for striking a juror)
- United States v. Brooks, 2 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 1993) (prior victimization by police can be a race‑neutral basis for strike)
- Edwards v. Roper, 688 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2012) (distrust of courts/prosecutors supports race‑neutral strike)
- State v. Mendoza, 227 Wis. 2d 838 (Wis. 1999) (prospective jurors with residual hostility toward justice system may be struck for cause)