State v. Nelson, 85 So. 3d 21

Three armed men robbed a mobile-home poker game; Nelson and Goldman implicated by accomplices; defendants tried together after denial of severance; voir dire had three panels with substantial white juror exclusion and mixed race venire; trial court treated co-defendants as a single entity for Batson; court found a Batson violation and ordered reseating and remedies; court of appeal affirmed; Louisiana Supreme Court reverses, vacates convictions, and remands for new trial.
Nelson and Goldman were convicted of illegal use of weapons, armed robbery, and conspiracy; both were habitual-offender sentenced; issues centered on reverse-Batson handling during voir dire.
State challenged defense counsel’s peremptory challenges as racially discriminatory; defense offered race-neutral reasons for nine peremptory strikes; trial court found Batson violation and prescribed remedies that affected both defendants.
Court of Appeal affirmed the Batson finding but the Supreme Court later held the Batson analysis and remedies were flawed.
This decision vacates convictions and remands for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly applied Batson steps two and three in reverse-Batson context	State claimed defense collaboration showed discriminatory intent	Nelson/Goldman argued race-neutral reasons valid; collaboration not inherently discriminatory	Batson steps misapplied; reverse-Batson mishandled; remanded for new trial
Whether race-neutral reasons for nine re-seated jurors were properly considered	State contends reasons insufficient to negate prima facie discrimination	Defense offered race-neutral explanations; reasons were adequate	Trial court erred in rejecting nine race-neutral reasons; remand for proper Batson analysis
Whether the remedy for Batson violation was proper given co-defendant collaboration	Remedy should deter discriminatory peremptory strikes	Remedy improperly restricted each defendant from challenging re-seated jurors	Remedy flawed; forfeit/forfeiture of strikes permissible; but barring challenges to reseated jurors was incorrect; remand for new trial with appropriate remedy

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (establishes three-step Batson test prohibits race-based peremptory strikes)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (reiterates that step two must not require persuasiveness at explanation stage)
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1991) (discriminatory purpose requires more than disparate impact)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (discusses persuasiveness in step three of Batson)
Jacobs, 803 So.2d 933 (La. 2001) (collapse of first two Batson steps possible; third step governs discrimination finding)