United States v. Geremy Atkins, 843 F.3d 625

Defendant Geremy Atkins, a Black man with prior state convictions, was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); he was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to 37 months.
During voir dire the government used peremptory strikes on five prospective jurors, all Black; the last stricken venireperson was Antonio Dandridge (married, eight children, recent employment changes; nephew is a Memphis police officer).
Atkins objected under Batson, and the district court found a prima facie case, then accepted the government’s race‑neutral explanations (unstable employment, many children, concerns about attentiveness) and denied the Batson challenge.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit proceeded to Batson step three under clear‑error review, conducted a comparative juror analysis, and examined whether the government’s stated reasons were pretextual.
The court concluded the government’s reasons were pretextual because similarly situated white jurors (e.g., jurors with multiple children and recent job changes) were not questioned or struck, the government failed to follow up on its purported concerns, and its explanations appeared afterthought and inconsistent with the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government’s peremptory strike of a Black venireperson violated Batson	Atkins: strike was race‑motivated; comparative juror analysis shows pretext because similarly situated white jurors remained seated	Government: offered race‑neutral reasons (employment instability, large family, subjective dislike); district court credited them; appellate comparative analysis improper or waived	Court: Reversed — government’s reasons were pretextual; Batson violation; conviction vacated and remanded for new trial
Proper standard of appellate review for Batson step three	Atkins: district court’s finding is reviewable (clear error or de novo for legal mistakes)	Government: argues plain‑error because comparative analysis not argued below	Court: Clear‑error standard applies to Batson intent findings; comparative analysis may be conducted on appeal when record sufficiently developed

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based peremptory challenges)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (appellate comparative juror analysis permissible when voir dire thoroughly explores the shared characteristic)
Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (striking a single juror for race is forbidden; court examines pretext closely)
Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (Batson three‑step framework explained)
Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (comparative juror analysis can show pretext even if not developed at trial)
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (trial court’s Batson intent finding is factual and reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Odeneal, 517 F.3d 406 (6th Cir.) (Batson step three requires assessing plausibility of race‑neutral reasons in light of the whole record)