MASHEA LOUISE RAY-SIMMONS A/K/A TAYANA SIMMONS AND ANTIONETTE MCGOULDRICK v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Barbera, Filed Feb. 22, 2016,
Jury Selection – Prosecutor’s explanation facing Batson challenge that “I intended to replace [a struck juror] with another black male” is not race-neutral and not “clear and reasonably specific” as to the basis for the strike

(Dissent- McDonald – We should get rid of peremptory challenges altogether. Prosecutor’s explanation related to stage 1 (pattern), not stage 2 (explanation). Also, objection was waived.)

A Batson challenge typically has 3 stages:
1) The challenging party makes a prima facie claim of racial/gender discrimination in opposing party’s use of peremptory strikes
2) The opposing party gives (any) race/gender-neutral justification for the strikes
3) The court decides whether purposeful discrimination has occurred

Jury Selection – Batson – By providing an explanation for the strikes, the opposing party advances the inquiry to stage 2

Jury Selection- Batson – Having opposing counsel address the Stage 1 (prima facie) claim is error “as a matter of law”

The issue here boils down to the context of “I intended to replace [a struck juror] with another black male.” If made as part of Stage 2, then it is neither race-neutral nor “clear and reasonably specific” as to the basis for the strike.

However, if seen as part of Stage 1 (as McDonald would hold), then it is an argument against the challenge of racial discrimination.

The Court notes that “What reasons a prosecutor may advance for his challenges are not relevant to a prima facie showing vel non.” But the statement at issue is NOT a “reason” advanced. The statement at issue DOES go against the claim that the challenges were used to achieve racial impact. That being said, the State’s explanation was one relevant argument sandwiched between irrelevant ones. That doesn’t make the relevant argument irrelevant… unless you follow the Court’s logic.

Judge McDonald has the better of this argument, though his case against peremptory challenges suggests that the remedy for a failed system/policy is its removal. I’ll miss you, government.