United States v. Moore
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15666, 397 U.S. App. D.C. 148, 651 F.3d 30 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Batson v. Kentucky, a prosecutor's peremptory strike of a juror is not unconstitutional if the prosecutor provides a credible, race-neutral explanation, and the totality of the circumstances does not establish purposeful discrimination. Separately, using a government 'overview witness' at the start of a trial to summarize evidence not yet presented and vouch for future witnesses' credibility is an impermissible and prejudicial prosecutorial practice.
Facts:
- During the late 1980s and 1990s, Rodney Moore, Kevin Gray, John Raynor, Calvin Smith, Timothy Handy, and Lionel Nunn operated a large-scale drug distribution business in Washington, D.C.
- The enterprise engaged in a wide-ranging course of violence to protect its operations, including committing at least 31 murders.
- The conspiracy distributed controlled substances, primarily cocaine base and heroin.
- Calvin Smith assisted Moore and Gray in the murder of Anthony Dent, who had a delinquent debt to Moore.
- Smith also murdered Eric Moore during a robbery of Moore's apartment.
- Timothy Handy committed the murders of Richard Simmons and Demetrius Green in connection with the conspiracy's activities.
- Kevin Gray, at the request of drug supplier Rodman Lee, murdered Ricardo Bailey in 1996.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia returned a 158-count superseding indictment against six defendants, including Rodney Moore and Kevin Gray.
- The government filed pretrial motions to empanel an anonymous jury and to require the defendants to wear stun belts, both of which the district court granted over defense objections.
- During jury selection, the defense raised a Batson challenge, arguing the prosecution was using its peremptory strikes to remove African-American jurors. The district court denied the challenge.
- After a trial lasting over ten months, a jury found the six defendants (appellants) guilty on numerous charges, including drug conspiracy, RICO conspiracy, and murder.
- The district court entered judgments of conviction and imposed sentences, which generally amounted to terms of life imprisonment or longer.
- The six convicted defendants appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to strike African-American prospective jurors violate the Equal Protection Clause under Batson v. Kentucky?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court applied the three-step Batson framework and found that the appellants failed to establish purposeful discrimination. The district court accepted the prosecution's race-neutral explanations for each challenged strike, a finding of fact which is afforded great deference and sustained unless clearly erroneous. The court noted several factors undermining the claim of discrimination: nine of the twelve empaneled jurors were African-American, mirroring the composition of the venire; the prosecutor's strikes did not skew the jury's racial composition; and there were no extrinsic indicators of racial animus. Upon individual review of the eleven challenged strikes, the court found plausible, non-pretextual, race-neutral reasons for each, such as a juror's youth, demeanor in court, expressed views on the death penalty, or a close relative's murder conviction.
Concurring - Rogers
No, while the result is correct, the district court's handling of the Batson challenge was procedurally deficient. This concurrence emphasizes the critical role of the trial judge at Batson's third step to conduct a 'sensitive inquiry' and make specific, on-the-record findings, rather than issuing a conclusory ruling that simply credits the prosecutor's explanations. Because the district court here failed to provide such an explanation, the usual deference to its findings falls away, requiring a more searching, de novo-like review by the appellate court. After conducting such a review of the record, this opinion agrees that the prosecutor's proffered race-neutral reasons for the strikes were plausible and that the appellants failed to carry their burden of persuasion to show purposeful discrimination.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its direct condemnation of using 'overview witnesses' at the start of a trial, aligning the D.C. Circuit with other circuits that have prohibited this prejudicial prosecutorial tactic. While the court found the error harmless in this instance due to overwhelming evidence, it established a clear prophylactic rule for future cases. Additionally, Judge Rogers's concurrence serves as a stern warning to trial courts about the need for rigorous, on-the-record analysis of Batson challenges. It signals that appellate courts may apply a less deferential standard of review where a trial court's Batson ruling is conclusory, thereby strengthening the procedural safeguards against racial discrimination in jury selection.
