Batson Challenge: Must the State have Questioned the Stricken Juror?

In a criminal trial, each side is allowed to strike a certain amount of prospective jurors (venire members) from the jury using peremptory strikes.  They can strike these venire members for any reason at all, so long as it is not discriminatory in nature.  If one side believes that the other has used a peremptory strike in a discriminatory manner (e.g. to strike a certain race from the jury), they can make what is called a Batson challenge.

Reviewing a trial court's denial of a Batson challenge in Grant v. State, the 10th District Court of Appeals (Waco) found that the State's explanation for striking a certain venire member was a pretext for racial discrimination because "there was no meaningful examination [of the member] regarding the reason the State used to strike him."  The Court of Criminal Appeals didn't agree with the legal reasoning of the Waco jurists.  Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Womack explained:

We hold that a lack of meaningful questioning might be sufficient to support a Batson challenge under the appropriate circumstances, but the Court of Appeals erred in applying the standard of review in this case.

The Court further explained that a reviewing court must given great deference to a party's facially race-neutral  explanation for using a peremptory strike, reversing only if the court's ruling was clearly erroneous.  (Is it wrong that I'm am bored while writing this post?  I can only imagine how bored you must me if you are reading it, so I'll cut to the chase).

In Whitsey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), the CCA created a non-exclusive list of five factors to determine whether a prosecutor used a peremptory challenge based on race.  One of the factors was the lack of meaningful questioning of the prospective juror, but the CCA stated that this factor was not dispositive.  Accordingly, because the Court of Appeals required the state to individually question the prospective juror, and because the Court of Appeals did not give great deference to the state's facially race-neutral reason for striking the juror, the CCA reversed.

Wheww!  That was terrible.  I really need to find some better cases to write about.  I have a backlog of Courts of Appeal opinions.  Maybe I should read through them and find something sexy.

Don't Buy Stock in this Soda Company

Just some levity for the weekend.

Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentence Affirmed

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids the execution of juveniles (i.e. anyone under the age of 18). At that time, the juveniles in Texas that were on death row had their sentences commuted to Life with parole. Also in 2005, the Texas Legislature amended Section 12.31(a) of the Texas Penal Code to require Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentences for capital cases in which the State does not seek the death penalty. This new LWOP provision applied to offenses committed on or after September 1, 2005.

Consequently, because juveniles could no longer be sentenced to death, all juveniles convicted of a capital crime in Texas were automatically sentenced to LWOP. In 2009, however, the legislature again amended section 12.31(a), to provide, in relevant part:

An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state does not seek the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the [TDCJ] for life [i.e. with parole], if the individual’s case was transferred to the court under Section 54.02, Family Code.

The new life imprisonment (with parole) ceiling on juvenile capital offenses was not applied retroactively. The legislature specifically provided that the amendment applied only to an offense committed on or after September 1, 2009.

Chris Joshua Meadoux, the subject of a recent Court of Criminal Appeals opinion, was a juvenile capital offender sentenced to LWOP for a double murder that occurred in 2007. Unfortunately for him, his offense was committed during the 4 year window in which LWOP was the required punishment for a juvenile capital offender. He complained on appeal that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because the 2009 amendment reducing LWOP to life indicates that LWOP is a cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles. His specific arguments on appeal were:

1. Juveniles were less morally culpable (i.e. blameworthy) for their crimes than are adult offenders;
2. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole did not serve as a measurable deterrent for juveniles; and
3. The Legislature’s recent amendment of the Texas Penal Code Section 12.31(a) to provide for life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for juvenile capital offenders signified that the evolving standard of decenecy, at least in Texas, forbade the categorical assessment of LWOP for juvenile capital offenders.

Appellant requested that his case be remanded back to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing in which life imprisonment would be the maximum penalty.

The 4th District Court of Appeals (San Antonio) held that the Eight Amendment did not bar LWOP in Appellant’s case, as his crimes were committed during the time in which LWOP was the required punishment. In its opinion of November 17, 2010, the CCA agreed, holding that:

(1) Meadoux has not established that there is presently a national consensus against imposing life without parole on a juvenile for the offense of capital murder. (2) A juvenile capital offender’s moral culpability, even if diminished as compared to that of an adult capital offender, is still great. (3) Life without parole is a severe sentence, especially for a juvenile. (4) Life without parole for juvenile capital offenders finds justification in the penological goals of retribution and incapacitation but not in the goals of deterrence or rehabilitation. Considering the balancing of these four factors, we conclude that Meaduox has not carried his burden of showing that, according to contemporary national standards of decency, the punishment of life without parole for juvenile capital offenders is grossly disproportionate to the offense.

Judge Meyers penned a dissenting opinion and was joined by Judge Johnson. They would hold that because the Legislature subsequently determined that LWOP is inappropriate for juvenile offenders, the sentence in Appellant’s case is unreasonably harsh.

I won’t make a lot of friends with my opinion of this holding, because I think the court got it right. In fact, I think the Legislature got it wrong in 2009. I believe that LWOP should still be an available punishment for juvenile capital offenders, but as an option, with life as the other alternative. We should let the jury decide whether LWOP or life is appropriate in each case. In this case, Meadoux committed a double murder and then tried to burn the bodies in a house fire to destroy the evidence. He got what he deserved.

No Such Thing as "Implied Bias"

Without fanfare, the Court today announces that there is no such thing as the Sixth Amendment doctrine of implied bias.

The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to an impartial jury. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ recent decision in Uranga v. State, however, threatens an essential aspect of this fundamental right by rejecting the notion of implied bias. Put simply, “implied bias” exists when it appears that a juror has, for whatever reason, a personal interest in the outcome of the case. When implied bias exists, the biased juror should normally be stricken from the panel.

In the Uranga case, the defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine. During the sentencing portion of the trial, the State presented extraneous offense evidence that the defendant had, on one occasion, attempted to evade police in his vehicle, and in the process, driven onto someone’s lawn. This event had been captured by the pursuing police officer’s in-car camera. After the jury watched the video, one of the jurors realized that it was his lawn on which the defendant had driven. Apparently, the juror never knew what happened to his lawn until the moment when he saw the video. Accordingly, the juror brought this to the attention of the court.

The judge then questioned the juror, outside the presence of the other jurors, about whether, after seeing this video and realizing that the defendant had damaged his lawn, he could continue to be fair and impartial in his role as a juror. Of course, the juror answered yes – he could be fair. After all, nobody wants to say that they cannot be fair. Nonetheless, the defense moved for a mistrial and the judge denied the motion. The juror remained on the case and the defendant was sentenced to life in prison.

On appeal, the appellant complained that he was denied a fair and impartial jury when the judge allowed the particular juror to remain on the case for sentencing. The 6th District Court of Appeals (Texarkana) held that the doctrine of implied bias should not be applied in this case and affirmed the conviction. The CCA now affirms, holding that in such a case as this, appellant must show actual bias in order to obtain relief. In so holding, the CCA all but extinguishes the doctrine of implied juror bias.

Judge Price, however, believes that the doctrine of implied bias is alive and well in American courts. Here’s a little of what he had to say in his dissent (joined by Judge Holcomb):

Without fanfare, the Court today announces that there is no such thing as the Sixth Amendment doctrine of implied bias.  The whole thing is apparently a figment of Justice O'Connor's imagination.  I am here to attest that the implied bias doctrine does exist.  I know it does; I have seen it...
[T]he Fifth Circuit regards the doctrine as so entrenched that it has seen fit to reverse a capital murder conviction on the basis of implied juror bias...

Regarding the CCA's requirement to show actual bias, Judge Price writes:

Determining actual bias of a juror's part is problematice to begin with, 'partly because the juror may have an interest in concealing his own bias and partly because the juror may be unaware of it.'  At a certain point the potential for bias may reach such a level that judges cannot depend of the time-honored tools for gauging credibility, such as tone of voice and demeanor, to ascertain the trustworthiness of the juror's claims of impartiality.

Even in Texas, this case surprised me.  I thought that the Court would have reversed and ordered a new sentencing hearing.  As the dissent points out, there can be "few more compelling reasons to impose punishment on an improper basis than the motive to avenge some wrong."  If for not other reason, the CCA should have reversed this case to avoid the appearance of impropriety in Texas courts.  Our prosecutors preach "justice" and "justice" should certainly include fairness.  The defendant may have still been sentenced to life with a new jury, but at least, we would know that he wasn't denied a fundamental constiutional right in the process.  He would be able to spend the rest of his life in prison knowing he got a fair shake.