State v. McFadden

Missouri, Respondent, STATE of McFADDEN, Appellant.

Vincent

No. SC 87753. Missouri,

Supreme Court of

En Banc.

March Thompson, M. of Public

Janet Office Defender, Columbia, Appellant. Nixon, Gen., (Jay) Atty. Jeremiah W. McPherson, Gen., Atty. Daniel Asst. N. City, Respondent. Jefferson PER CURIAM.

I. juryA Vincent McFadden of convicted murder, armed criminal ac first-degree tion, tampering. McFadden witness given the death consistent jury’s recommendation. This with .the jurisdiction pursuant has exclusive V, Among to Mo. art. sec. 3. Const. error, McFadden raises points fourteen v. challenges Kentucky under Batson valid judg Mississippi. and Johnson v. The reversed, and case remand ment is is ed.

II. facts, The which this Court reviews verdict,1 light most favorable that, May McFadden indicate threat killed Leslie Addison and shot and sister, Eva, so that Eva ened Leslie’s testify against McFadden. trial, of its At exercised five State one nine strikes to remove venire- Asian and four African-American remaining only The African- persons. hardship, leav- American was removed jury. De- ing McFadden with all-white challenged the strikes under fense counsel 2004). Taylor, State v. discriminatory Kentucky.2, attempt- State unsubstantiated denial justify ed to the strikes purpose, with race-neutral the defense must show that explanations, which ar- pretextual State’s gued pretextual. The trial court de- true The reason the strike is racial.6 nied jury McFadden’s Batson The claims. findings challenge trial court’s on Batson guilty charges. found McFadden of all will be set aside errone- ous, meaning reviewing the court is left During phase, State in with the and firm that a definite conviction troduced evidence of convic McFadden’s mistake This has made.7 Court tions and death sentence in an unrelated such a here. conviction case aggravating as supporting factors capital punishment in this jury case. The challenges McFadden on Batson cited the earlier statutory convictions as grounds peremptory the State’s exercise of aggravators and recommended a sentence strikes to remove two African-American 16, 2006, death. On May this Court pool. women jury from the The State reversed those earlier convictions State venireperson claimed to remove D.C. be (McFadden ).3 v. May 24, McFadden On participated cause she in her church 2006, the trial the present case choir’s annual Christmas concert at local sentenced plus McFadden 82 prison workhouse. The State claimed to years imprisonment. venireperson

remove S.H. because did she III. “crazy not have a driver’s she had hair,” red and she seemed hostile. The This Court the prin elaborated on Court a clear finds violation ciples of Batson and progeny its State’s having removal of S.H. for red hair. summarize, McFadden I. To racial dis being dispositive, This the Court does crimination in jury selection violates the opine on removal of D.C. Equal Protection Clause of the Constitu tion of the United States.4 rejected justi- The trial court the State’s

A defendant can pri- removing having establish fication for for not S.H. ma case of discriminatory jury selec seeming driver’s license and hostile. facie tion by “the totality the relevant facts” The court found the lack driver’s license prosecutor’s behavior perceived irrelevant and S.H. was defendant’s trial.5 When pro merely exasperated State hostile but vides a race-neutral exercising reason for interrogation concerning a State’s the li- peremptory strike that is more than an response justifica- cense. In to the State’s 79, 1712, 553, 2003); Brown, 2. 476 U.S. 106 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed.2d v. 69 State 958 S.W.2d 553 (1986). (Mo. 1997); Parker, As this Court cautioned in McFadden banc State v. 836 S.W.2d I, 930, “racial discrimination in (Mo. 1992). selection banc 933 compromises right the defendant’s to a trial impartial jury.” Citing Miller-El v. Batson, 94, 476 U.S. at 106 S.Ct. See Dretke, 2317, 2323, 545 U.S. Miller-El, 2324; Parker, also 125 S.Ct. at 836 (2005). 162 L.Ed.2d 196 933; Antwine, S.W.2d at State v. 743 S.W.2d (Mo. 1987). 64 banc McFadden, (Mo. 3. State v. 191 S.W.3d 648 2006). banc 6. Parker at 939. State, 4. Strauder v. 100 U.S. [Otto] 25 664; Antwine, Miller-El, 2324; Edwards, 525; L.Ed. 125 S.Ct. at State S.W.3d at Edwards, S.W.2d at 66. factors, foregoing Applying because of her tion for removal S.H. first, whether State’s hair,8 bright begin The with is dubious. race-neutral color, though perhaps hair un- S.H.’s Williams,13 on State v. where State relies acquain- among common exercised a tances, in the Afri- quite fashionable an African-American ven- strike remove community. can-American in “earrings clothing ireperson whose court, prosecution’s unfamiliar- sharing ‘trying that he was to be different’ dicated ity, agreed sepa- that the look “[made] ”14 rejected This and was ‘liberal.’ crowd, rate from the individualis- finding that “strik challenge, Batson tic” and the strike. allowed juror upon cloth prospective ing an inherent and attire does not reflect ing Normally, discrimi evidence of however, Here, defense racial bias.”15 rea nation is established when State’s conclusion that counsel refuted State’s an African-American veni- striking son for crazy hair and noted that S.H.’s color was to reperson applies an otherwise-similar ac neatly The Court S.H. was dressed. permitted of race who is member another are knowledges peremptory strikes appear to It does not that there serve.9 on subjective, great placed reliance is hair, juror was a white with distinctive but legiti trial of court’s assessment comparison necessary. is not identical explanation.16 In this macy the State’s per “A se that a cannot win rule defendant however, case, suggests the record exactly claim there is an Batson unless to initially inclined judge the trial was juror identical white would leave Batson challenges McFadden’s sustain inoperable.”10 evaluating pretext, In a tri retreated. The Court’s deference then the explanation al court considers whether limits. the trial court is not without View (1) (2) race-neutral, related to the case totality circumstances —the ing the tried, (3) specif reasonably clear and hair, red disdain for S.H.’s prosecution’s (4) ic, legitimate.11 trial court’s her lack of driver’s scrutiny of plausi “chief consideration should be as of her reaction misperception and his bility explanations subjective as prosecution’s hostile—the light totality of facts and circum from neut of the S.H. are far sumptions about surrounding ral.17 stances the ease.”12 color de- 15. Id.

8. The State elaborated on hair scribing it hair. It as "Ronald McDonald's It more looked like clown red hair. tended Morrow, (Mo. 114 State 968 S.W.2d 16. orange towards the side.” 1998). banc. Edwards, Miller-El, 2325; S.Ct. 116 9. 125 at regard prosecution’s 17. In further 525; Antwine, at at 743 S.W.2d 65. S.W.3d hostile, in McFadden claim that S.H. was Miller-El, 10. 125 S.Ct. at n. 6. "vague noted that references this Court largely demeanor ‘are irrele attributes like Edwards, 11. at 511. 116 S.W.3d ability to serve as to one's vant venirepersons expose strikes Parker, also Mil- 12. 836 S.W.2d at 939. See except their race.’ Ac no real reason 2331; Edwards, ler-El, at 116 vague heavily cordingly, are references such 527; Antwine, at 743 S.W.3d S.W.2d Edwards, (Citing 116 S.W.3d at scrutinized.” 2003). J., (Teitelman, concurring).) Williams, S.W.3d at 471. Second, the State fails to articulate how the introduced McFadden’s convic- State hair, red even if it as unusual S.H.’s case two of tions the Franklin as six it, prosecution as the found related to for the to consid- aggravating factors the case other than another conclusional May deciding punishment. er in On inference that S.H. was individualistic. 2006, opinion issued its again, the Here State and the trial court /, McFadden where it and re- reversed presume identify a lim- difference from case, thereby Franklin vacat- manded the jurors view. ited cultural “[P]otential ing McFadden’s convictions for murder cutters,”18 of a products set cookie action, result and armed criminal as a Third, nor should be. the State’s prose- five Batson violations same wit, specific, was clear and present Despite cutor who case. tried hair,” “crazy-looking which renders this Court’s reversal of the Franklin con- clear the of the fourth and fatal victions, of the which constituted one-third factor, legitimacy. justifica- The State’s jury’s recommending basis for removing tion for S.H. because her hair case, present May legitimate. light color is not In of the jury’s followed the recommendation circumstances, totality of facts and the to sentenced McFadden death. Because prosecution’s explanations Court finds the jury’s the recommendation this case was implausible merely pretext a to exer- on partly based factors that this Court cise a racially strike for dis- nullified, the sentence cannot stand. criminatory reasons. The trial court’s de- nial the challenge McFadden’s Batson In Mississippi,19 Johnson v. the erroneous. Supreme

United held States Court IV. prior the reversal of conviction that the McFadden also asserts that the jury death imposing pen considered the trial court in denying erred his motion for alty validity undermines the of the sen sentencing new trial and him to death case, During sentencing tence. the jury’s penalty because the recommenda prosecution introduced of the evidence de tion was partially based on McFadden’s prior felony per fendant’s conviction to convictions and death an sentence in unre sentence, jury suade the impose death lated case that this Court reversed prior the conviction was later vacated. (McFadden I). may As this issue arise on Supreme The Court “the retrial argues because the the State evi reversal of the the deprive[d] conviction unadjudicated dence is prior admissible as prosecutor’s ... of any evidence relevance acts, necessary bad it is to address the Mississippi’s sentencing decision.”20 issue this case. to impose The decision death cannot be 2005, April In McFadden was convicted factors to the sentenc irrelevant of murder and armed criminal action and ing process.21 received the death in connection This Court examined the effect of shooting the death Todd Franklin. case, 2006, present

In prior the tried in March reversed conviction in State Sto- Miller-El, Johnson, 18. 125 6. S.Ct. S.Ct. n. 486 U.S. at 1981. U.S. 100 L.Ed.2d Id. (1988). There, and armed criminal action. rey.22 prior conviction was used volved assault jury’s The that the recom- credibility implies the dur- State impeach defendant’s the con- mendation would been the ing guilt phase trial. The have same remaining The based on these four weaker fac- subsequently viction was reversed. sentencing body This Court held tors. is told “[W]hen State conceded error. because, decision, weigh harmless invalid factor its error was reasons, reviewing may not assume it among the references were other a have made no if thumb had attempt develop and not an difference brief contrast, Here, in from death’s of the theme. the State’s evi- removed side Brown, In penalty phase regarding Supreme scale.”25 dence occur, skewing cautioned that “such will prior McFadden’s convictions and error, voluminous, give only in de- rise to constitutional sentence was narrated testimony, jury given aggra- tail witness and illustrated where the could not weight facts and cir- vating over dozen exhibits. same cumstances under rubric of oth- some argues The that Johnson does not State er, sentencing valid factor.”26 State because, even if mandate reversal here notes that instructed now used Franklin convictions cannot heavily weigh statutory aggravators more statutory aggravators, underlying as But non-statutory than even aggravators. presented by the State still Franklin facts prosecution’s regarding evidence weight unadjudicated prior bad carry as underlying Franklin homicide facts acts, i.e., non-statutory cir- aggravating properly was admissible under rubric The v. cumstances. State cites Brown non-statutory prior bad aggravating Sanders23 in which the United States Su- acts, the Court cannot assume that preme explained: and jury’s weighing process sense of re- ... sentencing invalidated factor [A]n unaffected its knowl- sponsibility were unconstitutional will render sentence already edge was sen- that McFadden improper adding reason its A on resting tenced to death. sentence aggravation scale ... element to equally invalid is factors Court deems sentencing fac- unless one of the other invalid. give aggra- tors enables sentencer and vating weight to the same facts V. (emphasis original) circumstances.24 in dispos- foregoing Because the claims im rejects the State’s The Court itive, necessary it is not address and plication that the Franklin convictions The grounds appeal. judg- remaining death sentence were critical is remand- ment and the case is reversed six decision-making process. Of the jury’s ed.

statutory factors on which the WOLFF, C.J., recommendation, only LAURA DENVIR penalty its death STITH, TEITELMAN, in RUSSELL relating the Franklin case two LIMBAUGH, WHITE, JJ., concur; J., The in- volved a homicide. other four Black, 222, 1999). citing Stringer 25. Id. v. 503 U.S. 22. S.W.2d 462 986 (1992). L.Ed.2d 367 117 S.Ct. 163 L.Ed.2d 546 U.S. (2006). Sanders, S.Ct. at 892. Brown Sanders, 126 S.Ct. at 892. Brown v. part in in least part qualification, part concurs and dissents in death filed; PRICE, J., separate opinion my jury qualifica- selection and death concurs LIMBAUGH, in opinion of tion. J. pen- She was weak on death LIMBAUGH, JR., STEPHEN N. alty. She hesitated in her responses Judge, concurring part dissenting regarding the death she before

part. once, than [sic] would answer more I respectfully part dissent from that I especially questioned her about when majority opinion addressing the Bat- signing the death verdict and she indi- challenge. son that would able cated she to consider punishment. that believe from majori- The record does not support demeanor, answers, and her that she ty’s holding prosecutor’s that “the explana- not, lying me. she That tions implausible merely pre- [were] fact, ever consider the sentence text to peremptory exercise a strike for circumstance, under nor would she racially discriminatory reasons.” there So put herself in a where position ever is no mistake or misperception about the require required sign she would facts, —be necessary it is to include a full ac- a death verdict or that announce verdict exchange count of the transpired open court. among prosecutor, defense counsel and then judge. found this When the struck veni- S.H., to be race-neutral. reperson defense counsel identified her as an African-American female and point, ques- At challenged tioned whether S.H.’s hair color was rele- being strike as made on the basis of race. speculated vant that S.H. could have The prosecutor then his reasons wearing wig going through after striking S.H. as follows: chemotherapy. argued Counsel also

Well, thing several women the African-American anybody first no- [S.H.], community dyed their hair color ticed about Juror Number is her as a fashion statement. ar- crazy-looking hair. is a Counsel also It red —a gued color that the lack of a brighter of red driver’s license than the ink that relevant, not out of red and she noted that pen comes a a marker. several or I’m her not sure if relatives did have licenses. Coun- wig not it’s or it’s her real sel also never hair. stated demeanor, made a record about S.H.’s She also li- doesn’t have a driver’s bailiffs they that the told not her did cense, the only panel one in the who see or sleeping S.H. inattentive. Counsel physical doesn’t have a reason for said also that S.H. never indicated having driver’s license. hesitation on the death penalty. demeanor, her especially And in the prosecutor responded: qualification, appeared death to be me to Well, to if process, hostile the—at least to the regard with to what defense not me personally, stated, to with her arm fold- counsel has even defense admission, I standing directly crazy ed. I noticed as was counsel’s own in point eyes front her one her hair is at least some sort of statement. were closed. I don’t if obviously trying know sure And she’s herself set sleeping, she was but I apart she seemed com- from the crowd. don’t need pletely in process somebody disinterested with—that some sort is, just yes. it It will crazy ap- pause, attitude towards her whatever

weird or say yes. getting jury. to be back in the pearance jurors have come to a unani- I made note of it. And I’ve tried These setting thirty jury been in- obviously mous verdict. She’s over trials. I’ve crowd, four I volved in death cases. apart herself from the for what- reason, analyze person’s know how to demean- open ever in a and notori- they’re determining or not similarly no situated or whether way. ous There’s going good for me or bad me. crazy appearance, that has a other ways. experiences both goofball than what—I call him a I’ve had for cause that had a was struck demeanor, my And on her beard, Top head and ZZ shaved demeanor, my expe- of her I tattoos on head. would have his jurors selecting rience all these vari- him, too, through, if he made it struck my ten-year trials over career ous obviously making he’s a state- because further, lawyer, as a I consulted —and ment, too. my eo-eoun- prosecutor], [another with sel, obviously notes the word She is not invested and he had he, community she, independent- even have a she doesn’t liar. That fact— me, thought license. What kind of identifica- also that she was not ly driver’s my thought. being That’s to her regard tion does she have? truthful with views penalty. We discussed it on death major thing. It’s the That’s not the It was our that she is together. decision I her crazy red hair. found that de- to return a verdict of death. going never really I’m not meanor was hostile. And ever question I whether or she’s or defense concerned what bailiffs guilty no going to return verdict attorneys think. That’s for the defense is. matter what the evidence attorney to make their determination jurors. about how view these And for all reasons that I it’s those similarly her. There’s no situat- fact, struck I as I stood in front of know juror. rea- ed Those race neutral her qualifications, eyes do nothing It has with her Now, sons. may closed. I have been juror, race. It has to do with whether really may boring, she have been think- think, law not. I I can follow the or hard, impression I ing got real going think to follow law. don’t she’s I listening me. And don’t she wasn’t there, put I think no matter what somebody going like when is not lis- a way no could return verdict there’s she qualification questioning. ten death death. of If it don’t like part were another —I I it. If other way view That’s why paying don’t to be atten- seem way But I disagree, fine. people goes at I as it tion all. But understand it, way prosecutor] [the view the other in a you’re and on. But when small it, think we that we viewed saw don’t qualification, an group death that’s issue. ever return a verdict me, going that she’s at I they’re looking And when not her it’s because of de- of death. And make a mental note it. meanor, answers, her appearance, her distinctly And I remember she an unlicensed driver. and her status of immediately upon me did not answer I think that an unlicensed driver question. That don’t asking the cannot you If of a deal. But combine big in is that reflected the record. there’s it, obviously sitting I, in question, all of she’s the record will not show pause, — fact, her asked about her license. REPORTER: No. COURT well, thought, maybe got if she’s some importantly, THE So more COURT: physical problem, I tell by looking can’t in regard general with voir dire her, why at you that’s reason wouldn’t particular, prosecutor] going stated [the have driver’s license St. Louis. prosecutor in—the Court is aware that a elderly. not probably She’s She looks to attorney somebody up or an can’t set me like she’s her twenties. type do order to a Batson strike And it seems me odd that some- an specific questions to individual. body who especially employ- has retail But prosecutor] ques- [the when started job ment as Foot Locker regard to tioning the driver’s [S.H.] employee, have, which would I would license, getting started into more assume, hours, varying which would details, my perception was [S.H.] very make it get difficult to to work she was offended that. And you if don’t ability have a by going into that I’m detail. And her — to drive a car. what expe- That’s we gone any not sure had prosecutor] [the rienced with the who didn’t further, she not have even up today, show because she said she more offended. ride, didn’t have a and didn’t have a license. any I don’t—I didn’t see offense to- my They

So those are reasons. prosecutor] [the wards or towards all race nothing neutral. It has to do penalty defense the death voir dire. with race. dire, general But in the voir I did notice that. argued Defense counsel then that S.H.’s hairstyle did not set her aside from the regard point With to the first community women, of African-American similarly jurors, other situated there are so similarly no jurors situated Caucasian it actually “makes even more of a racial physical that were of a similar manner- disputed issue.” Counsel also the idea ism, except for the had individual that

that not having driver’s license means beard, head, the tattoos on his extensive you are not community, invested in the head, and a shaved who was stricken and she criticized the cause much earlier on. asking why S.H. she did driv- similarly And there’s no other situated er’s license. style, that had such hair or individuals judge then he why coloring, hair or stood out of the normal denying challenge: the Batson panel, regardless out of if they [S.H.], regard Venireperson With or Caucasian even African-American prosecutor] [the did—I have—the Court particular. people So there’s no other gotten transcripts both similarly way. situated individuals general and the voir dire of And the Court has [S.H.]. read those The third factor under that of case detail, in especially quali- and the death Marlowe, v. [State Marlowe fication. 2002) prosecutor’s is ] the

They just very yes plain simple or credibility upon the no answers. And it’s not—it doesn’t demeanor and voir statements give pauses. reflect the dire, experiences the past and Court’s —doesn’t you

Do normally put pauses prosecutor]. in there? with [the by failing female struck herself probably I’ve to ten cases can tried seven n with prosecutor] approximately over five and a over hours appear for two [the year prosecutor], in period. [The half the African- the dire. One of for voir fact, many at- fact, has avoided occasions males, in was stricken for American get type into a Batson tempting even cause. He—I find that his voir challenge area. time, in point prose- [the And this very straight, point. the As a dire is D.C., [venirepersons cutor] has stricken attorney, try I could I’m not sure L.P., the even And Court and S.H.]. get away case with type the same of acknowledged same, everybody it. But he treats race neutral reasons. And those are are. He and it doesn’t matter who say the Court will no —there’s runs, says, and says sort of whatever he ability say any for there’s through it. And he shows no goes right fact, any ability say, in that there was case, is—in nor

racial animus. He any those. Those racial reason for of any other cases. strictly for non-racial reasons. Hopkins Hop In [State that case of prose- prosecutor’s] And record [the kins, E.D. (Mo.App. 140 S.W.3d 143 clear, cuting has how these cases been 2004) District we’ve been—the Eastern ] performed regard to these he’s opin Appeals came out with Court of cases. 24, 2004, Hopkins August ion on in writ Shaw, ten Booker T. Honorable And the situa- going [S.H.]. We’re prosecu did the went into detail of fact, judge, actually is circuit tion questions against tor ask number City of St. Louis and grew up more, jurors or African-American actually City Louis Public attended St. questions that were asked. number very young, and is Schools when he was keep ques And track of the I’ve tried to familiar, actually worked for the did. And tioning prosecutor] [the [the years. a number of City Louis for St. specifically go to prosecutor] didn’t Louis, City of St. Worked jurors. question African-American down in in the Federal Court worked were, ques- my There did—he Louis, only City left the of St. jurors tion more the African-American or City approximately Louis seven St. jurors. He didn’t than the Caucasian years ago living City eight from questions from change Caucasian years. thirty-two African-American, an Afri- person to an here. And I’m out in courthouse to a Caucasian. can-American County very Louis is also And St. Hopkins type of the So on basis racially courthouse. And the diverse dire, prosecutor’s] voir [the hairstyle hair of is not [S.H.] prose- past, dires [the his voir ever, a lot has seen on is—the Court of— clearly not violative of cutor] And it distinc- really, before. particular, those of—in we type hairstyle that has. [S.H.] tive red two, three, four, one, five, five Afri- had structure as may It not be the same females, one African- can-American skinhead, somebody who looks like see. African-Amer- American —let’s Six cause, at the who left females, one African-American ican you know, time that is—that is male, same Asian-American who and one a— physical clear that the courts have been voir after general made it to the dire neu- are a race of an individual African-Ameri- features qualification. One somebody, I they tral of how and question reason. The United States Su Elem, way prosecutor] don’t believe preme [the [Purkett —the was. prosecutor] [the [S.H.] asked U.S. 131 L.Ed.2d (1995)], affirming [S.H.], think, which is of a sec But I was taken aback ondary prosecu This was a by concerning conviction. the li- questioning the proffered explanation peremp tor’s for if she cense. I’m not sure was offended. tory black challenge of a male: The But I’m not appeared She offended. hair, long had unkempt play moustache and a sure if that would role. beard, was race neutral and satisfied the reasons, But on those I the —based articulating of burden not deny challenge. will the Batson discriminatory reason the strike. question the Batson Subsequently, when also, I think hair pros- the red as [the the on the again hearing was raised indicates, distinguish does ecutor] her trial, judge motion for new the described crowd, and from separate makes her the S.H.’s hair as and an assis- “fluorescent” and very pros- individualistic. And [the prosecutor tant stated that S.H.’s hair from prosecutorial experi- ecutor] “looked more McDonald’s red like Ronald necessarily ence does not want that on a hair. It looked like clown red hair. It jury- orange tended more towards side.” And I think upon that based the sec- It is clear from the record that degree ond reason of logical rele- prosecutor judge great went proffered vance between the reason and lengths letter to follow the of the law tried, the case to there is a case be that regarding procedures Batson and to as- people that are sort out there on the sure that strike was free hair, fringe, whether or how majority’s of racial bias. The stated con- dress, mannerisms, or prosecutor for a cern, however, that “the State and the is non-racial reason not want type will presume identify difference person case. view,” from a limited cultural and as explanation given the non— claimed voir dire, having “quite I non-driver’s think in that red hair is fashionable in itself, very community.” But logi- not not African-American —is cally simply relevant record shows not that S.H. had really log- between—is hair, ically red but that hair was Although relevant. her “red —a there’s no color of than ink similarly brighter red jurors situated Caucasian marker,” comes out or a it pen red of that mode. hair,” “fluorescent,” “crazy “like But conceivably you combine that hair,” Ronald McDonald’s red “like clown well, with the fact that various dif- this — speculat- red hair.” Even defense counsel hair, ferent that that red-colored condi- ed that may wearing wig. S.H. itself, think, just tion in and distinctive, least, say Her hair was having license would not a separate and did indeed from “[make] strike, good enough for a rationale crowd, [appear] individualis- others, combining strike her. But in expla- tic.” This is indeed a race-neutral experience and the past Court’s nation. prosecutor], watching ani- [the had, mosity juror’s appearance and the A taking invariably Court’s notice that a been held to be a valid basis exercising peremptory can’t themselves cause a strike because strikes. For instance, trial because of the admis- properly phase the trial court relied on Elem, Purkett v. that had been which United sion evidence defendant Supreme pros held that “the fact States Court convicted of an earlier murder. The proffered in this explanation ecutor’s appeal was the conviction reversed juror he case—that struck number be after in this case reversal mandates hair, unkempt cause he had a mus long, here, too. ” tache, and a race neutral.... beard —is Similarly, 514 U.S. Williams, State v.

this Court 2003), approved pros peremptory

ecutor’s venireperson’s earrings “that

strike clothing ‘trying that he indicated was ” The to be different’ and was ‘liberal.’ DIXON, Claimant-Appellant, Clinton “[s]triking prospec clothing upon tive and attire does not reflect an inherent racial bias view, strike.” Id. In

motivating my INC., INDUSTRIES, STOAM logical distinguish way there is no these Employer-Respondent, cases from case at hand. addition, although appearance In S.H.’s justification principal

was the Employment Security, Division of strike, expressly the trial court acknowl- Respondent. hostility edged S.H. showed toward prosecutor. acknowledged He also No. 27407. a driver’s that S.H.’s lack of though perhaps enough and of itself of Appeals, Missouri Court strike, justify was still factor to be District, Southern Unfortunately, majority considered. Division Two. explanations these additional dismisses July say except without that S.H.’s “misperception.” hostile reaction was a

Ultimately, majority gives nothing lip fundamental tenets of service to the

Batson jurisprudence “that subjective, great

strikes reliance

placed on the trial court’s assessment explanation.” legitimacy of the State’s circumstances, I totality of the

Under convict the quite unwilling prosecu-

am prejudice, and the racial judge

tor hold that the trial court’s denial challenge erro-

neous. majority opinion

I concur 2007 WL is entitled to a new See also S.W.3d extent defendant

Case Details

Case Name: State v. McFadden

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Mar 20, 2007

Citation: 216 S.W.3d 673

Docket Number: SC 87753

Court Abbreviation: Mo.