One last look at Snyder
A few passing thoughts on Snyder that I don’t think have received sufficient attention, on the major online sites, wires, lists, etc..
First, Chase Law’s Michael J.Z. Mannheimer hits the most important “take away” from the opinion with this pithy analysis in the comments at the Volokh Conspiracy:
First, the case seems to shift the burden of an ambiguous record from the opponent of the strike to the proponent of the strike. That is, where the trial court does not specifically say why it is not convinced that the strike is motivated by discriminatory animus, it seems that the proponent of the strike must now prod the court to do so. If it does not, the proponent bears the risk that a reviewing court will independently view the strike as discriminatory based on the cold record without giving any deference to the trial court’s ability to judge the demeanor of the prospective juror.
Second, as the other team’s Kent Scheidegger notes correctly:
. . . this case arose on direct review, so the habeas deference standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is not involved. However, this case is now “clearly established” Supreme Court precedent, and it will surely be cited in most Batson cases from this point onward. Note at page 6 of the slip opinion that the Court is unwilling to presume that the trial judge relied on his own observation of the venireman’s demeanor without any statement from the judge to that effect. Once again, we see the importance of making the record.
Finally, rather than contracting Batson as some commentators have suggested, the majority may be seeking to expand Batson to a mixed motive analysis. The following quote on the bottom of page 12 & continuing to page13, albeit being dicta, suggests where the Court may be going next.
In other circumstances, we have held that, once it is shown that a discriminatory intent was a substantial or motivating factor in an action taken by a state actor, the burden shifts to the party defending the action to show that this factor was not determinative. See Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U. S. 222, 228 (1985). We have not previously applied this rule in a Batson case, and we need not decide here whether that standard governs in this context. For present purposes, it is enough to recognize that a peremptory strike shown to have been motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent could not be sus-tained based on any lesser showing by the prosecution.
[Update: Prof Mannheimer has added to his thoughts here.]
Tags: Batson, jury selection, Snyder v. Louisiana, voir dire
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
[...] of Batson and Miller-El with Justices Alito and Roberts joining the Miller-El majority. Several other fine points, however, deserve mention. First, the opinion suggests that the burden of an ambiguous record, [...]
June 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
[...] Michael J.Z. Mannheimer hits the most important ???take away??? from the opinion with this pithhttp://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/blog/?p=2897Should kids be spanked? – Page 13 – Geeks’ [...]