Akin v. State

Citations: 668 So. 2d 74; 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 24; 1995 WL 11401Docket: CR-92-0513

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; January 12, 1995; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Joseph Dewey Akin was indicted for murder under Alabama law and subsequently found guilty by a jury, leading to a life sentence. Akin contends that the trial court made errors by not granting his request for a Batson hearing and for a mistrial, claiming the State engaged in racial discrimination by using all 20 of its peremptory challenges to remove white jurors from the panel. Akin, who is white, noted that the victim was black and that the venire included 54 members, with 18 being black. The State's actions resulted in a jury panel of five black jurors and nine white jurors. 

During the trial, the State accused Akin of using his peremptory challenges discriminatorily against black jurors, prompting the court to require Akin’s defense counsel to provide race-neutral reasons for his strikes. The court determined that the defense failed to justify four of its strikes and mandated the replacement of three white jurors with three specified black jurors. Akin's counsel asserted that this decision violated Akin’s constitutional rights to a jury of his peers and equal protection under the law, arguing that peremptory strikes should be at the discretion of the defendant. 

The next day, before the jury was sworn in, Akin's counsel formally moved to restrike the jury or request a mistrial, reiterating concerns about the racial composition due to the State’s peremptory challenges. The court noted that Akin’s counsel had previously remained silent during discussions about jury strikes, which undermined their current objections.

The court questioned Mr. Short about the selection of the jury, highlighting that he had made no comments during the jury's formation. The court noted that the State pointed out Mr. Short used thirteen strikes against black jurors, while he claimed to have struck eight white jurors first. However, the court corrected him, stating this was impossible given the total number of strikes allowed. The court reviewed the qualifications of four women jurors who had expressed concerns due to media exposure but asserted they could remain impartial. These women were among those Mr. Short struck, along with other jurors, including a jailer and a police officer, suggesting his strikes were based on trial strategy rather than race. Mr. Short claimed the jury lacked his client's peers, but the court refuted this by emphasizing that the racial composition of the jury should not inherently invalidate its fairness. The court expressed a commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system, irrespective of racial considerations in jury composition. Mr. Short acknowledged no further comments, and the court recognized the defense counsel's reverse Batson motion, affirming its validity for review, particularly regarding the State's peremptory strikes against white jurors.

In Williams v. State, the defendant, who is white, faced a jury selection process where the prosecution utilized all 20 of its peremptory challenges to exclude white jurors, while not striking any black jurors. Citing Ex parte Thomas, the court acknowledged that a defendant can establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination by examining the racial composition of jurors struck. The trial court is instructed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to assess whether Akin has established such a case of discrimination regarding the State's strikes. If a prima facie case is established, the State must provide race-neutral justifications for its strikes, which the trial court will evaluate. The trial court is required to submit a report within 60 days, including any testimony and its findings. The case is remanded for these proceedings, with all judges concurring.