U.S. v. Reed

In prosecution on drug conspiracy, murder for hire and money laundering charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ Batson challenge to government’s use of peremptory challenges to two African-American jurors. Ct. of Appeals rejected defendants’ argument that government’s use of three of its six peremptory challenges on African-American potential jurors, which resulted in exclusion of 43 percent of eligible African Americans compared to only 13 percent of white venire members, was, by itself, evidence of racial discrimination. Ct. further observed that Dist. Ct. actually noted government’s strike rate at step one of Batson process, and that fact that Dist. Ct. did not repeat said strike rate at step three of Batson process did not require different result. Moreover, government could justify use of peremptory challenge on one juror, who expressed concern that he would lose clients if he had to miss work to attend trial and expressed pro-defense bias by suggesting that defendants were not guilty under all circumstances. Also, government could use peremptory challenge with respect to second juror, who suggested that her attendance at trial might create hardship for her because of her need to take care of her son. Said juror also stated that family member was in prison, which can be valid race-neutral justification for using peremptory challenge.