State v. YAI BOL
190 Vt. 313
Vt.2011Background
- Defendant Yai Bol is convicted of providing false information to a police officer and possession of cocaine after a confrontation and subsequent discovery of cocaine in a police cruiser.
- During voir dire, defense counsel sought to strike the sole Black juror with a peremptory challenge, but the court denied the strike without a race-neutral justification.
- The trial court stated that striking the sole Black juror required a good reason and cautioned against discrimination based on race.
- Defense counsel offered no race-neutral reason beyond instinct, and the court insisted on a reason for the strike.
- The jury ultimately acquitted Bol of the assault charges but convicted him of the remaining two offenses.
- On appeal, Bol contends the court misapplied Batson and deprived him of a fair trial by blocking his peremptory challenge. The Vermont Supreme Court agrees and reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Batson applies to defense peremptory challenges | Bol contends Batson applies to defense challenges. | Bol relies on Batson and its extension in McCollum to apply to defense challenges. | Batson applies to defense peremptory challenges. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the defense peremptory strike of the sole Black juror | State argues no reversible error from the denial because no proper prima facie case was shown. | Bol argues the court denied a legitimate peremptory strike and misapplied Batson's framework. | Error in barring the peremptory strike; reversible error requiring new trial. |
| What constitutes a prima facie Batson showing when the sole minority juror is challenged | State regards the prima facie showing as potentially met by the mere fact of excluding the sole minority juror, depending on surrounding circumstances. | Bol argues that more than the sole removal is needed to infer discrimination. | Sole removal of the minority juror is not by itself enough; additional circumstances are required to establish a prima facie case. |
| Remedy for improper denial of peremptory challenge | State has no compelling reason to reverse absent showing of prejudice. | Bol seeks reversal and retrial due to denial of a vital trial right. | Reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory challenges cannot be used to discriminate on the basis of race)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) (extends Batson to cover cross-racial challenges)
- Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992) (Batson applies to defendants' peremptory challenges)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005) (prima facie Batson standard requires evidence to permit inference of discrimination)
- Cousin v. Bennett, 511 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2008) (sole strike of the only minority juror not, by itself, a prima facie showing)
- United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 422 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2005) (illustrates factors that can support an inference of discrimination)
- United States v. Roan Eagle, 867 F.2d 436 (8th Cir. 1989) (excluding sole juror of same race as defendant can raise inference of discrimination)
- Chalan v. United States, 812 F.2d 1302 (10th Cir. 1987) (prima facie case when all Native American jurors are excluded)
- Delaoz v. State, 2010 VT 65 (Vt. 2010) (state appellate framework for Batson-like review)