State v. Saladin Thompson(074971), 132 A.3d 1229

Background

Defendant Saladin Thompson (African American) was tried for shootings that killed one victim and injured others; convicted of murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, and weapons offenses; sentenced to an aggregate 67 years with an 85% parole-ineligibility term.
During jury selection the State used nine peremptory challenges; seven of those struck African-American prospective jurors. The empaneled jury nonetheless included five African-American jurors of fourteen total.
Defense counsel raised a Gilmore (Batson-type) challenge on the first day of trial (five days after strikes, before jurors sworn), alleging the disproportionate use of strikes against African Americans but offered no additional factual support at that time.
The trial court immediately dismissed the challenge for failure to make a prima facie showing; after conviction the Appellate Division remanded for the prosecutor to articulate reasons for the seven strikes.
On remand the prosecutor provided race-neutral, situation-specific explanations for each excusal; defense (new) counsel relied on transcripts and said he was disadvantaged by the delay and absence of trial counsel; the remand court credited the prosecutor and denied relief.
The Appellate Division reversed again and ordered a new trial, finding the trial court failed to perform the full Gilmore third-step analysis and that the record suggested uneven application of the prosecutor’s reasons; the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated convictions, remanding only for consideration of a sentencing claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thompson)	Held
Whether trial court adequately addressed a Gilmore/Batson challenge when defense raised a timely but minimal prima facie claim	Court may dismiss if defendant fails to make a prima facie showing; but State offered to explain strikes and did so on remand	Prima facie established by disproportionate strikes (7 of 9); court should have required immediate explanation and developed record	Trial court erred not to take the prosecutor’s proffer at first appearance, but remand cured the deficiency; ultimate denial on remand was upheld because prosecutor’s reasons were credible and supported by record
Whether prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons were applied even‑handedly and genuine	Reasons were situation-specific, supported by transcripts, and jury composition had higher % of African Americans than venire; strategic interest in African-American jurors given victims’ race	Prosecution’s explanations were pretextual; record suggested uneven application and silence on key comparators	Appellate Division erred: defendant failed to present contrary evidence; remand court’s credibility findings are entitled to deference and were not clearly erroneous
Standard of appellate review for Gilmore/Batson factual findings	Defer to trial court credibility findings; federal clear‑error standard appropriate	Appellate review should independently ensure third-step analysis applied and even‑handedness tested	Apply deferential (clear‑error/substantial deference) standard; overturn only if findings are clearly mistaken
Remedy when initial Gilmore inquiry is perfunctory and no contemporaneous record developed	Better practice is to allow State to record reasons; remand appropriate to permit explanation	Failure to require immediate explanation and contemporaneous development is prejudicial and may necessitate new trial	Initial remand was appropriate; but because remand produced reliable, supported reasons and defendant presented no counter‑proof, new trial was not warranted

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits racial exclusion by peremptory challenge)
State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (establishes three-step Batson framework under NJ Constitution)
State v. Osorio, 199 N.J. 486 (refines Gilmore; requires assessment of even‑handed application, overall pattern, and jury composition)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (clarifies Batson steps and burden shifting)