Time limitation on jury selection; Batson v Kentucky challenge; Whether the race-neutral explanations were pretextual

The court concluded “that the trial court did not err by finding that the reasons for dismissing the three prospective jurors were legitimate and did not demonstrate purposeful racial discrimination.” Thus, defendant-Carswell was not entitled to relief on this basis. Further, reversal was not warranted on the basis the trial court limited voir dire to 30 minutes of questions per party. Carswell was convicted of CSC III. He argued “that, by limiting his lawyer’s time to conduct voir dire, the trial court prevented him from developing a factual basis regarding the jurors’ attitudes toward allegations of sex offenses with a minor.” The court disagreed. Given the record here, the trial “court’s decision to limit voir dire to 30 minutes of questions per party did not prevent the development of a factual basis for the parties to exercise preemptory challenges.” Carswell next argued “that the prosecution’s preemptory exclusion of three prospective African-American jurors was racially motivated.” The sole issue on appeal was “whether the trial court clearly erred by determining that the race-neutral explanations were not pretextual.” Carswell argued “that the prosecutor’s explanation for the strikes was based upon the prospective jurors’ demeanors.” The court noted that the “prosecutor elected to strike Juror One based upon his belief that his friend was wrongfully convicted. That decision was based upon Juror One’s answer to the questions, not upon his demeanor and nonverbal conduct. The trial court found that the prosecutor’s reason for the strike was not a pretext for discrimination and that it was instead a legitimate reason for striking the prospective juror. That finding was not clearly erroneous given the record before” the court. It next noted that “Juror Ten stated that her nephew was in prison for criminal sexual conduct. The prosecutor stated that she had struck her from the jury for that reason. The decision to strike was not based upon any nonverbal conduct or demeanor. Rather, it was based upon her familial relationship with someone who had been convicted of the same class of offense as Carswell was charged with committing. The trial court found that the reason for striking the juror was legitimate and was not pretextual.” In light of the record, the court concluded that this finding was not clearly erroneous. Finally, “Juror Twelve informed the [trial] court that he had been convicted of ‘bouncing’ a check when he was a teenager. He stated that he had not been treated fairly.” Given that it was “reasonable to infer from the juror’s response that he felt some crimes were less important, the prosecutor’s stated reason is supported by the record.” The court did “not find clearly erroneous the trial court’s finding that the reasons stated [were] legitimate and not a pretext for discrimination.” Affirmed.