Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; March 22, 1999; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
On March 24, 1998, the court upheld Jerry Lewis Salter’s murder conviction, addressing only the issue of potential racial discrimination in the State's use of peremptory challenges. Following a remand, a hearing determined that the State did not improperly exercise its challenges. The court had previously established a prima facie case requiring the State to justify its challenges based on Batson v. Kentucky. During the hearing, the State provided reasons for striking six black prospective jurors, which included family ties to individuals with criminal cases, prior knowledge of the crime scene, and relationships with defense counsel. The trial judge had retained detailed notes from earlier proceedings, confirming the State's reasons. He concluded that the challenges were based on race-neutral justifications, despite some concerns about strikes related to jurors sharing last names with individuals known for criminal activity. Ultimately, the judge found no evidence of purposeful discrimination, affirming the State's actions.
Challenges to jurors based on their familiarity with defense counsel are deemed reasonable and facially race-neutral, as established in *Lockett v. State*. A close relationship between jurors and defense counsel can be grounds for a challenge for cause, as noted in *Holmes v. Elliott*. Concerns arise when jurors are familiar with the crime scene or witnesses, such as bartenders and patrons, which affects their impartiality in evaluating evidence. The trial involved seven witnesses who had connections to the crime scene. Moreover, a prosecutor's belief that a juror might be related to a prison inmate with the same last name was considered a potentially weak but facially race-neutral reason for a peremptory challenge, as indicated in *Henderson v. State*. Importantly, peremptory challenges do not require strong justification, but they cannot be racially motivated. The trial court has the discretion to assess whether facially neutral reasons are genuine or pretextual, taking into account the demeanor of counsel. The court upheld the trial court's determination that the reasons for the challenges were neutral and not discriminatory.
In the case of Jerry Lewis Salter, who was convicted of murdering Willie “Jake” Shields, he contested his conviction on two grounds: alleged racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges and the jury verdict being against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction but remanded the case for a hearing as required by *Batson v. Kentucky*. The incident occurred at the Flamingo Lounge, where a fight escalated between Salter and another patron. After being escorted outside, Salter instructed his girlfriend to retrieve a gun. When Shields approached him later, Salter shot him three times, claiming self-defense. Despite acknowledging the shooting, Salter maintained that he acted to protect himself and his brother. The jury ultimately convicted him of murder.
Salter contends that the State unconstitutionally used peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, invoking the precedent set in Batson v. Kentucky. He argues that the trial court erred by finding he did not establish a prima facie case of systematic exclusion of black jurors. To establish such a case, Salter must demonstrate: (1) membership in a cognizable racial group, (2) that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges against jurors of that race, and (3) an inference of racial exclusion. Following this, the burden shifts to the State to provide race-neutral explanations for its challenges. If the defendant does not rebut these reasons, the court only evaluates the State’s justifications.
During jury selection, the State challenged six of the seven black jurors, prompting Salter's objection. The trial court, however, ruled that Salter failed to establish a prima facie case, citing a balance in strikes between races. This conclusion is found to be inaccurate, as the systematic exclusion of nearly all black jurors raised sufficient questions requiring the State to provide race-neutral explanations. The court's procedure was correct, but its conclusion was flawed; Salter did indeed establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.
Citing Thorson v. State, the court remands the case to the Circuit Court of Lowndes County for a hearing to determine whether the State's challenges were unconstitutional. The district attorney will present race-neutral reasons for the challenges, and Salter will have the opportunity to rebut these reasons.
A new trial must be ordered unless the trial court finds no purposeful discrimination by the State. If no impermissible discrimination is found, the court must document its factual findings and certify them to the higher court. Salter argues that the trial court incorrectly denied his motion for a new trial, claiming the verdict contradicts the overwhelming weight of the evidence, specifically asserting he shot Shields in the heat of passion rather than with premeditation. The appellate court reviews evidence in support of the jury verdict and grants a new trial only to prevent an unconscionable injustice. In this case, both Salter and the State presented evidence regarding the nightclub incident, with witnesses supporting the prosecution's narrative of Salter's guilt. Testimony indicated that Shields was unarmed and retreating when Salter shot him multiple times. The jury's conclusion of guilt was thereby deemed valid, leading to the affirmation of Salter's murder conviction and life sentence. Costs of the appeal are assigned to Lowndes County, with several justices concurring in the decision.
