809 F.3d 371
7th Cir.2016Background
- Brown was arrested after a controlled heroin purchase; police found >100 grams heroin, a loaded firearm, trafficking items, and $4,000; Brown admitted possession on videotape.
- Charged with possession with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841) and felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); proceeded to jury trial.
- During voir dire, the 28-member venire included two African Americans. Juror 74 (African American) answered the arrest question: "Warrant for my arrest, wrong person."
- The government used a peremptory strike on Juror 74, explaining a race-neutral reason: the juror’s wrongful-arrest response suggested potential bias against law enforcement; Brown objected under Batson.
- The district court found the government’s explanation credible and sincere after reviewing questionnaires and denied the Batson challenge; Brown was convicted and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the peremptory strike of Juror 74 violated Batson | Brown: government’s explanation was pretextual because other jurors had similar arrest-related answers and government didn’t follow up | Government: race-neutral reason—Juror 74’s wrongful-arrest answer uniquely suggested anti-law-enforcement bias; other jurors were not similarly situated | Affirmed: court gave deference to district court credibility finding; other jurors were distinguishable |
| Whether failure to ask follow-up questions shows pretext | Brown: government should have clarified Juror 74’s answer during voir dire; omission suggests insincerity | Government: voir dire moved quickly; answer was clear and would not likely be clarified by follow-up; strategic decision not to interrupt | Held: district court credited government’s sincerity; appellate court will not second-guess credibility finding |
| Whether disparate impact (greater negative law‑enforcement interactions for African Americans) makes the justification non–race-neutral | Brown: justification is effectively not race-neutral because African Americans are disproportionately affected by negative policing encounters | Government: Batson forbids intentional discrimination, not disparate impact; bias against law enforcement is a legitimate race-neutral reason | Held: Disparate impact alone insufficient to prove Batson pretext; justification permissible and race-neutral |
| Whether the district court failed to consider material record evidence | Brown: trial court ignored questionnaires of other jurors in Batson inquiry | Government: court and counsel reviewed all juror questionnaires; court did consider them | Held: Court considered the materials; defendant bears burden to raise specific comparisons at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (establishing three-step framework for Batson challenges)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (all circumstances bearing on racial animosity must be consulted)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (approving side-by-side juror comparisons to show pretext)
- United States v. Yarrington, 640 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 2011) (appellate review for clear error and deference to district court credibility findings)
- United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2009) (de novo review where Batson inquiry conducted improperly)
- United States v. Stephens, 514 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2008) (court cannot ignore material portions of the record)
- United States v. Hendrix, 509 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2007) (defendant must timely raise challenges during voir dire to allow court to address them)
- United States v. Cruse, 805 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2015) (disparate impact alone does not establish discriminatory intent under Batson)
- United States v. Smallwood, 188 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 1999) (bias against law enforcement is a legitimate race-neutral justification)