United States v. Bobby Hampton, 887 F.3d 339

In July 2015 a jury convicted Bobby Joe Hampton, an African-American, of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Venire drawn that morning included 31 people; two African Americans (Juror 22 and Juror 45) were in the venire. The government used peremptory strikes against both; Hampton raised a Batson challenge.
The government proffered race-neutral reasons: negative body language, non-responsiveness, lack of eye contact, and participation in a bench conference (Juror 22 disclosed she was a plaintiff in a pending civil suit).
The district court sustained the Batson challenge as to Juror 22 (kept on jury) but overruled it as to Juror 45 (excused). Jury convicted Hampton.
On sentencing, the PSR sought an ACCA enhancement based in part on a 2006 Arkansas burglary conviction; the district court declined the ACCA enhancement and sentenced Hampton to 87 months.
On appeal, Hampton challenged the overruling of Batson as to Juror 45; the government cross-appealed the ACCA ruling. The Eighth Circuit affirmed both rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution’s peremptory strike of Juror 45 violated Batson	Hampton: strike was race-based; body-language reasons pretextual given many nonresponsive jurors	Government: struck Juror 45 for race-neutral reasons — non-responsiveness, body language, lack of eye contact	Court: Overruled Batson challenge as to Juror 45; government’s reasons were plausible and not clearly erroneous
Whether prosecution’s peremptory strike of Juror 22 violated Batson	Hampton: same Batson challenge to striking Juror 22	Government: cited body language and bench-conference participation	Court: Sustained Batson challenge as to Juror 22; government should have inquired about bench conference, Juror 22 not shown to avoid service
Whether Arkansas burglary conviction qualifies as an ACCA violent felony	Hampton: conviction does not qualify	Government: argued it qualifies to trigger ACCA enhancement	Court: ACCA enhancement rejected; bound by circuit precedent holding Ark. Code § 5-39-201(a) not a violent felony
Standard of review for Batson determinations	Hampton: appellate scrutiny sufficient to reverse	Government: deference to district court’s factual findings	Court: Reviewed for clear error and applied deference to district court; affirmed in part

Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (Sup. Ct.) (Batson three-step framework and single-juror discrimination rule)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (Sup. Ct.) (Batson framework quotations)
United States v. House, 825 F.3d 381 (8th Cir.) (demeanor and body language can be race-neutral reasons)
United States v. Maxwell, 473 F.3d 868 (8th Cir.) (body language as legitimate, race-neutral reason)
United States v. Davidson, 449 F.3d 849 (8th Cir.) (similar-situation analysis for Batson comparison jurors)
United States v. Ellison, 616 F.3d 829 (8th Cir.) (overruling Batson where juror appeared inattentive)
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (Sup. Ct.) (importance of adequate voir dire)
Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (Sup. Ct.) (voir dire’s role in ensuring impartial jury)
United States v. Sims, 854 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir.) (Arkansas burglary statute not a violent felony under ACCA)
Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir.) (panel precedent binds later panels)