State of Iowa v. Jerin Douglas Mootz , 808 N.W.2d 207 ( 2012 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 10–0418
Filed January 27, 2012
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
JERIN DOUGLAS MOOTZ,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Douglas C.
McDonald, Judge.
Appellant seeks further review from the court of appeals decision
affirming his conviction for assault on a police officer resulting in bodily
injury. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Leslie Behaunek,
Student Legal Intern, and Martha J. Lucey, Assistant Appellate Defender,
for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant
Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Dion D.
Trowers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
2
ZAGER, Justice.
Defendant Jerin Mootz appeals his conviction for assault on a
police officer resulting in bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code section
708.3A (2009). During voir dire, Mootz sought to use a peremptory
challenge to remove a Hispanic juror. The district court found Mootz was
using his strikes in a racially discriminatory manner, denied the strike,
and seated the juror. Mootz was convicted and appealed. We transferred
the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals found the district
court erred in refusing to allow the strike of the potential juror, but
Mootz had not shown that the error prejudiced him, and affirmed the
conviction. We granted further review. For the reasons set forth below,
we reverse the decision of the district court and remand for a new trial.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History.
On June 6, 2009, shortly before midnight, Davenport police officer
Epigmenio Canas, who is Hispanic, was dispatched to a disturbance at a
bar. As he entered the parking lot of the bar, he saw a large number of
people pushing and screaming at each other. Canas was in uniform and
driving a marked squad car. As Canas attempted to arrest one of the
male instigators, a female, later identified as Tamara Mootz, the
defendant’s wife, pushed Canas. As Canas was dealing with her, the
defendant, Jerin Mootz, ran towards Canas and punched him in the side
of the face with a closed fist. A struggle ensued and the two went to the
ground. Canas ultimately gained control over Mootz after several
punches were exchanged.
Mootz was charged by trial information with assault on a police
officer resulting in bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code section 708.3A.
Trial commenced on February 8, 2010. Mootz waived reporting of voir
dire.
3
Based on the subsequent record, however, we are able to
determine that prior to the attorneys’ exercise of their peremptory
strikes, the court advised the parties that it had observed three
minorities on the jury panel, two of whom were Hispanic males. 1 The
court advised counsel that only one of the minority jurors, Alexander
Ramirez, was “strikable.” Ramirez was strikable because of his
relationship to area law enforcement and a medical issue he needed to
attend to that day. Mootz struck Ramirez from the jury panel. Mootz
attempted to strike Andrew Garcia, a Hispanic male, who in the district
court’s view at the time, was the only other Hispanic juror.
Subsequently, the court, sua sponte, conducted a hearing in
chambers and asked the State if it objected to Mootz striking Garcia.
The State indicated it objected to the peremptory strike stating there was
no “relevant reason for him being stricken.” In response to the objection
to his strike, Mootz stated he did not have to give a reason. However, if
he did have to provide a reason, he was striking Garcia because Garcia
was a former bartender who claimed he knew about intoxication and
because Garcia stated he had been previously arrested and thought he
deserved it.
The court concluded that the reasons offered by Mootz were
insufficient to challenge him. The court went on to state, “[W]e have a
police officer who is Hispanic and we make it a point to make sure that
minorities are treated fairly like everyone else on our jury panel and I
think that’s important and that applies to both the Defendant and the
State.” The court did not allow Mootz to strike Garcia, instructed
1There were, in fact, four minorities on the panel, three of whom were Hispanic.
The third Hispanic juror, Renee Ott, was not counted by the district court as Hispanic,
even though she listed her ethnic origin as Hispanic on her interview sheet. This is
because “she didn’t have a Hispanic name.”
4
counsel to strike somebody else, and Garcia was sworn and served as a
juror.
After the State called two witnesses, but before the jury returned
from lunch, Mootz moved for a mistrial. Mootz claimed that he was
denied his absolute right to strike any of the proposed jurors and that by
allowing Garcia to sit on the jury, the court had denied Mootz his Sixth
Amendment right to a fair trial. This motion was denied by the district
court citing the fact that the victim was Hispanic and that “it’s fair that
we have a proper mixture of backgrounds on the jury.”
The jury, including Garcia, found Mootz guilty. On February 17,
Mootz filed a motion for a new trial, again stating he was improperly
denied his use of a peremptory strike against Garcia. Attached to his
motion, Mootz submitted the juror interview sheet identifying Ott as
another Hispanic juror whom he did not attempt to strike. Mootz
claimed that no prima facie case had been made showing he exercised
his challenges in a racially discriminatory manner, that he had offered a
race-neutral explanation for his strike, and that there had been no
showing that his reasons were merely pretextual. Mootz sought a new
trial on the grounds that he had been denied “his statutory right to a
peremptory challenge and a fair trial.” The court denied the motion on
February 24 and sentenced Mootz to an indeterminate term not to exceed
two years in prison and a fine of $1500. Mootz timely filed a notice of
appeal on March 15, 2010.
The court of appeals, in a split decision, affirmed Mootz’s
conviction. Citing State v. Neuendorf, 509 N.W.2d 743 (Iowa 1993), and
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148, 129 S. Ct. 1446, 173 L. Ed. 2d 320(2009), the majority held that, while the district court erred in denying
Mootz’s peremptory challenge, Mootz was not entitled to a reversal of his
5
conviction because he had failed to show that the trial court’s error
resulted in prejudice. The dissent argued that because the jury that
determined Mootz’s guilt improperly included a juror Mootz was denied
the right to strike, prejudice should be presumed, Mootz’s conviction
reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial. We granted further
review.
II. Standard of Review.
Interpretations of the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure are
reviewed for corrections of errors at law. State v. Bruce, 795 N.W.2d 1, 2
(Iowa 2011). To the extent our review implicates any constitutional
claims, our review is de novo. State v. Veal, 564 N.W.2d 797, 806 (Iowa
1997), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hallum, 585 N.W.2d
249, 253 (Iowa 1998), vacated on other grounds, 527 U.S. 1001, 119 S.
Ct. 2335, 144 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1999). In cases where the prosecution has
been accused of using strikes to engage in purposeful racial
discrimination, we have given a great deal of deference to the district
court’s evaluation of credibility when determining the true motives of the
attorney when making strikes. See id. at 807. We will give the district
court’s evaluation of a defense attorney’s credibility and motives the
same level of deference.
III. Discussion.
The district court did not allow Mootz to strike a second Hispanic
juror, even after Mootz offered a racially neutral explanation for the
strike. Our task on appeal is twofold. First, we must determine whether
the district court erred when it denied Mootz a peremptory challenge on
the basis that he was using the strike to engage in purposeful racial
discrimination. Second, if we determine the court’s ruling was in error,
we must determine the appropriate remedy.
6
A. The Allegation that Mootz Used His Strikes to Engage in
Purposeful Discrimination on the Basis of Race. A defendant violates
the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights of a juror when he
uses his peremptory challenges, or strikes, to engage in purposeful,
racially motivated discrimination. Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 48,
59, 112 S. Ct. 2348, 2353, 2359, 120 L. Ed. 2d 33, 44, 51 (1992). In
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69(1986), the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor could not use his
peremptory challenges to engage in purposeful racial discrimination.
Batson, 476 U.S. at 100, 106 S. Ct. at 1725, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 90. A
challenge to the defendant’s use of strikes based on purposeful racial
discrimination is known as a “reverse-Batson challenge.” United States v.
Thompson, 528 F.3d 110, 115 (2d Cir. 2008). In addition to protecting
the equal protection rights of jurors, the Batson rule was extended to the
actions of a defendant because allowing a defendant to obtain an
acquittal that is “assisted by racially discriminatory peremptory strikes”
undermines public confidence in the judicial system just as much as a
conviction that is obtained by purposeful racial discrimination on the
part of a prosecutor. McCollum, 505 U.S. at 50, 112 S. Ct. at 2354, 120
L. Ed. 2d at 45.
The Fourteenth Amendment only prohibits purposeful racial
discrimination that is “attributable to state action.” Id. The Supreme
Court held that when a state court allows a defendant to exercise a
peremptory challenge in a discriminatory fashion, the court “place[s] its
power, property and prestige behind the [alleged] discrimination.” Id. at
52, 112 S. Ct. at 2355, 120 L. Ed. 2d at 47 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original). Even though a
peremptory challenge is, by its very nature, a capricious and arbitrary
7
statutory right of the defendant, a court cannot enforce the defendant’s
exercise of that right it if is used to engage in purposeful racial
discrimination against potential jurors. See id. at 50–55, 111 S. Ct. at
2354–57, 120 L. Ed. 2d at 45–48 (finding enforcement of a defendant’s
peremptory challenge to be a state action).
Courts use the Batson test to determine if a litigant is using
peremptory challenges to engage in purposeful racial discrimination.
The Supreme Court has summarized the Batson test as follows:
Under our Batson jurisprudence, once the opponent of a
peremptory challenge has made out a prima facie case of
racial discrimination (step one), the burden of production
shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a
race-neutral explanation (step two). If a race-neutral
explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide
(step three) whether the opponent of the strike has proved
purposeful racial discrimination.
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767, 115 S. Ct. 1769, 1770–71, 131 L. Ed.
2d 834, 839 (1995). We now apply this test to the case at bar.
1. Step one: The prima facie case of racial discrimination. In
determining whether the party objecting to the strike has made a prima
facie case of purposeful discrimination, the court may consider all
relevant circumstances, including a pattern of strikes against jurors of a
particular race. State v. Knox, 464 N.W.2d 445, 448 (Iowa 1990). The
prima facie case requirement, however, becomes moot when the party
attempting to strike a juror offers a race-neutral explanation for the
peremptory challenge. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359, 111
S. Ct. 1859, 1866, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395, 405 (1991).
We have not previously addressed the question of whether a trial
court may raise a Batson issue sua sponte. However, the rationale
underlying Batson and its progeny supports the position that a trial
court may make an inquiry sua sponte after observing a prima facie case
8
of purposeful racial discrimination through the use of peremptory
challenges. Batson makes it clear that a trial court has the authority to
raise sua sponte such an issue to ensure the equal protection rights of
individual jurors. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 99, 106 S. Ct. at 1724, 90 L.
Ed. 2d at 89 (“In view of the heterogeneous population of our Nation,
public respect for our criminal justice system and the rule of law will be
strengthened if we ensure that no citizen is disqualified from jury service
because of his race.”); see also McCullum, 505 U.S. at 49–50, 112 S. Ct.
at 2354, 120 L. Ed. 2d at 45 (“ ‘Be it at the hands of the State or the
defense,’ if a court allows jurors to be excluded because of group bias,
‘[it] is [a] willing participant in a scheme that could only undermine the
very foundation of our system of justice—our citizens’ confidence in it.’ ”
(citation omitted)(alteration in original)).
When a defendant purposefully discriminates against a juror on
the basis of the juror’s race, the Supreme Court has recognized that “the
‘barriers to a suit by an excluded juror are daunting.’ ” McCollum, 505
U.S. at 56, 112 S. Ct. at 2357, 120 L. Ed. 2d at 49–50 (quoting Powers v.
Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 414, 111 S. Ct. 1364, 1373, 113 L. Ed. 2d 411, 427
(1991)). As such, the State is allowed to object to a strike on behalf of
the potential juror who has allegedly been discriminated against. Id.
The State is “the representative of all its citizens [and therefore,] is the
logical and proper party to assert the invasion of the constitutional rights
of the excluded jurors in a criminal trial.” Id.
Other jurisdictions have allowed a trial judge to inquire into an
attorney’s motives sua sponte once the court observes a prima facie case
of purposeful racial discrimination. See Lemley v. State, 599 So. 2d 64,
70 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) (“By closing his eyes to the possible
discrimination, the judge, ‘in a significant way has involved himself with
9
invidious discrimination.’ ” (quoting Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.,
500 U.S. 614, 624, 111 S. Ct. 2077, 2085, 114 L. Ed. 2d 660, 676
(1991))); People v. Rivera, 852 N.E.2d 771, 785 (Ill. 2006), (“[W]e conclude
that a trial court has the authority to raise a Batson issue sua sponte in
appropriate circumstances.”) aff’d, 556 U.S. 148, 129 S. Ct. 1446, 173 L.
Ed. 2d 325 (2009); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind. 1996)
(“We conclude that it was within the discretion trial courts enjoy to
manage and control the proceedings to intervene to protect [a juror’s
equal protection rights].”); Brogden v. State, 649 A.2d 1196, 1200 (Md.
Ct. Spec. App. 1994) (“A trial judge need not sit idly by when he or she
observes what he perceives to be racial discrimination in the exercise of
peremptory challenges. He is clearly entitled to intervene.”); People v.
Bell, 702 N.W.2d 128, 135 (Mich. 2005) (“We thus conclude . . . that a
trial court may sua sponte raise a Batson issue.”); Hitchman v. Nagy, 889
A.2d 1066, 1072 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006) (“We have no doubt
that a trial judge has the authority to raise the issue of racial bias in the
exercise of peremptory challenges sua sponte.”); State v. Evans, 998 P.2d
373, 378–79 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (“[T]he trial judge, as the presiding
officer of the court, should take the necessary steps to ensure that
discrimination will not mar the proceedings in his courtroom.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)). But see Aki-Khuam v. Davis, 339
F.3d 521, 527 (7th Cir. 2003) (reviewing Williams, 669 N.E.2d at 1379 in
a habeas proceeding and affirming the district court, which noted that
“the voir dire ‘process is still an adversarial one and the case law,
including Batson and the cases that followed it, make it clear that Batson
issues must be raised. Batson is not self-executing.’ ” (citation omitted));
Doe v. Burnham, 6 F.3d 476, 481 (7th Cir. 1993) (“Under Batson, a court
10
should at least wait for an objection before intervening in the process of
jury selection to set aside a peremptory challenge.”).
We agree that a trial judge can inquire as to a defense attorney’s
motives for a peremptory strike. However, the best practice requires that
the trial court first observe an “abundantly clear” prima facie case of
discrimination. Rivera, 852 N.E.2d at 785. In holding that the court
may raise the issue sua sponte, the Michigan Supreme Court pointed to
the jurisdictional barriers a juror might face in trying to bring a suit as
articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Powers and McCollum
and further noted that “wrongly excluded jurors have little incentive to
vindicate their own rights.” Bell, 702 N.W.2d at 135. We are mindful of
the difficulty an excluded juror would face in seeking to vindicate his
equal protection rights, as well as the juror’s lack of motivation to do so.
Rivera, 852 N.E.2d at 785. We have also noted that “[c]ontrol of jury voir
dire is lodged in the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Tubbs,
690 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Iowa 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). We agree that “[t]rial courts are in the best position to enforce
the statutory and constitutional policies prohibiting racial
discrimination.” Bell, 702 N.W.2d at 135. If a trial court observes an
attorney using his peremptory strikes in such a way that would
constitute a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination, it would
be appropriate to ask for a race-neutral reason for the defendant’s
strikes.
While we recognize a trial court may raise the issue of purposeful
racial discrimination sua sponte, like other jurisdictions to consider this
issue, we will also “insist upon a clear indication of a prima facie case of
purposeful discrimination before trial courts are authorized to act.”
Rivera, 852 N.E.2d at 785. This means that a trial court must wait until
11
it observes a party use a peremptory challenge in a discriminatory way
prior to intervening in the use of peremptory challenges. See, e.g.,
Hitchman, 889 A.2d at 1074 (“Requiring the trial court to identify a prima
facie case of discrimination before initiating a [Batson] inquiry will avoid
a chilling effect on counsel’s further exercise of peremptory challenges.”).
Our general rule regarding factual findings and Batson violations is that
“it is preferable for trial courts to make express findings in connection
with Batson challenges, [but a] failure to do so is not necessarily fatal to
the court’s ruling.” Veal, 564 N.W.2d at 807. When the court raises the
Batson issue on its own, however, we will require the district court to
“make an adequate record, consisting of all relevant facts, factual
findings, and articulated legal bases for both its finding of a prima facie
case and for its ultimate determination at the third stage of the Batson
procedure.” Rivera, 852 N.E.2d at 785–86. These requirements will
ensure the parties will not use the court to engage in purposeful racial
discrimination, while at the same time respecting the neutral role of the
trial judge.
A pattern of strikes against jurors of a particular race could be
prima facie evidence of racial discrimination. Knox, 464 N.W.2d at 448;
see also State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 376 (Iowa 1997) (finding a
prima facie case was established where the only two African-American
panel members were struck). In this case, the trial judge informed
counsel prior to the exercise of their peremptory strikes that Ramirez, a
Hispanic, could properly be stricken from the jury panel, but Garcia, a
second Hispanic, could not. Thus, the trial court sua sponte raised a
Batson challenge before the parties even began to exercise their
challenges. At this point in the proceedings, it would have been
extremely difficult to show a prima facie case of purposeful racial
12
discrimination. But more significantly, the trial court did not articulate
on the record that it found a prima facie case of discrimination before
proceeding to step two of the Batson procedure. Based on the record in
this case, we cannot conclude that the district court observed a clear
indication of a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination.
The district court here lacked a sufficient basis for raising the
Batson issue sua sponte. However, after the attempted strike, the State
also objected to Mootz’s strike. The State, however, did not argue that
Mootz’s challenge was based on racial discrimination. Instead, the State
simply stated, “I don’t see any relevant reason for him being stricken.”
This also falls short of establishing a prima facie case of purposeful racial
discrimination.
This does not end our inquiry. The Supreme Court has noted,
[I]n the context of employment discrimination litigation
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that “where the
defendant has done everything that would be required of him
if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case,
whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant.” The
same principle applies under Batson. Once a prosecutor has
offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory
challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate
question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue
of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing
becomes moot.
Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359, 111 S. Ct. at 1866, 114 L. Ed. 2d at 405
(citation omitted). Though this case presents the opposite situation,
where the State rather than the defendant seeks to prevent the exercise
of a peremptory challenge, the same rule applies. Once Mootz offered a
race-neutral reason for the strike, the preliminary issue of whether the
State had made a prima facie showing became moot. See id. Therefore,
the State’s failure to establish a prima facie case does not end the
inquiry.
13
2. Step two: A race-neutral reason for the strike. Step two in a
Batson analysis is extremely deferential to the party seeking to strike the
juror. In the Supreme Court’s words, “At this step of the inquiry, the
issue is the facial validity of the [attorney’s] explanation. Unless a
discriminatory intent is inherent in the [attorney’s] explanation, the
reason offered will be deemed race neutral.” Id. at 360, 111 S. Ct. at
1866, 114 L. Ed. 2d at 406. The Supreme Court does not require the
reason for the strike be “persuasive, or even plausible.” Purkett, 514 U.S.
at 768, 115 S. Ct. at 1771, 131 L. Ed. 2d at 839. For example, the fact
that a juror had “long, unkempt hair, a mustache, and a beard” is a
proper race-neutral reason because “ ‘the wearing of beards is not a
characteristic that is peculiar to any race’ . . . [a]nd neither is the
growing of long, unkempt hair.” Id. at 769, 115 S. Ct. at 1771, 131 L.
Ed. 2d at 840 (quoting EEOC v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 635 F.2d 188,
190, n.3 (3d Cir. 1980)). It is not until step three “that the
persuasiveness of the justification becomes relevant.” Id. at 768, 115 S.
Ct. at 1771, 131 L. Ed. 2d at 839.
The Batson inquiry cannot be terminated at step two merely
because the judge does not find the reason given to be persuasive. Id.
The reason given must, in and of itself, violate equal protection. See id.
Allowing the judge to simply stop the inquiry because he believes the
reason given at step two was “silly or superstitious . . . violates the
principle that the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial
motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.”
Id.
In this case, when asked to provide his reason for striking Garcia,
Mootz offered the following explanation:
14
I have a good reason to strike him. I didn’t like the way he
said that when he was arrested, that he deserved it and that
he was a bartender and knows intoxication. There’s a lot of
reasons why this man should not be on this particular jury.
But I certainly have a legitimate reason to strike him beyond
the fact that he is Hispanic.
Both of these reasons were race-neutral. One race-neutral reason was
Garcia’s past interactions with police officers and his attitude towards
the police based on those interactions. Our cases have repeatedly noted
that a juror’s interactions with law enforcement and the legal system are
a valid, race-neutral reason for a peremptory challenge. See Veal, 564
N.W.2d at 807; Griffin, 564 N.W.2d at 376; State v. Keys, 535 N.W.2d
783, 785 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Mootz also voiced concerns over Garcia’s
claim that he was familiar with intoxicated people based on his
experience as a bartender. The instant case arose out a bar fight that
spilled out into the parking lot. There was evidence presented at trial
that Mootz was intoxicated at the time of the incident. This was also a
racially neutral reason for the strike. In addition to being race neutral,
the justifications offered by Mootz are perfectly reasonable and satisfy
step two of the Batson analysis.
Because race-neutral reasons were provided, the district court was
required to accept them and proceed to step three, to determine whether
the reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination. In response to
Mootz’s claim that he offered race-neutral reasons for striking Garcia, the
court simply stated, “[I]n my opinion, you didn’t.” The district court also
stated that Mootz offered “no legitimate reasons why . . . [Mootz] would
have a real issue with Mr. Garcia . . . serving.”
The trial court erred in concluding that Mootz’s reasons for striking
Garcia were not race-neutral and that Mootz’s reasons for striking Garcia
were not “legitimate.” They were clearly both. The district court did not
15
engage in the proper analysis required by Batson. It stopped at step two
when it erroneously determined Mootz did not offer proper, race-neutral
reasons for the exercise of his peremptory strike. The trial court should
have instead proceeded to step three to determine whether the court (or
the State) had met its burden and shown that Mootz was attempting to
use his peremptory strikes to engage in purposeful racial discrimination.
3. Step three: Has the striking party attempted to engage in
purposeful racial discrimination? After the striking party offers its race-
neutral reason for the strike, the district court must then determine
whether the “stated reason constitutes a pretext for racial
discrimination.” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 363, 111 S. Ct. at 1868, 114 L.
Ed. 2d at 408. At this stage, the burden is on the party seeking to
prevent the strike because “the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding
racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the
strike.” Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S. Ct. at 1771, 131 L. Ed. 2d at
839. The court must, at this point, “decide whether to believe the
[attorney’s] explanation for the peremptory challenges.” Veal, 564
N.W.2d at 807. When the objection is made by the opposing party, a
trial court does not need to make express findings regarding a Batson
violation, but it is preferable for trial courts to do so. Id. In the absence
of express findings, we are allowed to review the implied findings of the
trial court regarding the attorney’s credibility and his asserted reasons
for the strike. See id.
The district court did not evaluate Mootz’s credibility regarding the
reasons provided for the peremptory strike. Instead, the court stated the
reasons were insufficient, illegitimate, and invalid reasons for the strike.
As discussed above, this was error by the trial court. Mootz’s
explanations for wanting to strike the juror—his past dealings with the
16
police and his experience with intoxicated bar patrons—were not only
valid, racially neutral reasons for striking Garcia, they were reasonable.
As the opponent of Mootz’s strike, the State did not contend that Mootz
was using his stated reasons for striking Garcia as a pretext for
discrimination. Therefore, it did not meet its burden and prove
purposeful racial discrimination on Mootz’s part. The court’s only
obligation in this case was to determine, after hearing Mootz’s
justifications for his strike, whether the opponent of the strike had
proven Mootz was using strikes to engage in purposeful racial
discrimination. After the court heard Mootz’s race-neutral reasons for
his strikes, the next step for the court was to determine whether they
were so “silly or superstitious” that they must constitute a mere pretext
for purposeful discrimination. See Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S. Ct. at
1771, 131 L. Ed. 2d at 839. Instead, the court simply declared them to
be invalid and illegitimate.
Mootz’s reasons were legitimate, and they were not so implausible
that they can be viewed as a mere pretext for discrimination. Mootz’s
reasons focused on the juror’s attitudes regarding his past encounters
with law enforcement and the juror’s beliefs about intoxication that were
formed during his time bartending. This case involved an altercation
with a law enforcement officer that occurred following a bar fight where
Mootz may have been intoxicated. Given the context of this case, Mootz’s
reasons cannot be seen as a mere pretext to purposeful racial
discrimination. They represent legitimate concerns for a criminal
defendant. In Mootz’s opinion, Garcia’s life experiences and prejudices
made him an objectionable juror. In order to remove the objectionable
juror, Mootz attempted to use one of the peremptory challenges
guaranteed to him by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.18(9). Mootz
17
was not engaging in purposeful discrimination on the basis of race. He
was simply exercising his statutory right to strike a juror he worried
would be predisposed to convict him. The district court erred when it
prohibited Mootz from using his peremptory challenge to remove Garcia.
B. Mootz’s Remedy. The State claims that under State v.
Neuendorf, 509 N.W.2d 743 (Iowa 1994), prejudice will no longer be
presumed when the defendant loses a peremptory challenge. In order to
receive a new trial, the State claims Mootz must show actual prejudice
resulting from the error. Mootz contends he is entitled to an automatic
reversal without a showing of prejudice because the effect of the loss of
his peremptory challenge cannot be ascertained, and it would be
impossible to demonstrate prejudice. In a split decision, the court of
appeals found that, under Neuendorf, Mootz must show actual prejudice
in order to have his conviction reversed and that because there was no
evidence of prejudice the conviction should be affirmed.
Mootz was charged with assault on a police officer causing bodily
injury, a violation of Iowa Code section 708.3A(3), an aggravated
misdemeanor. Under rule 2.18(9), Mootz was entitled to strike four
prospective jurors. These strikes are granted to Mootz, and all criminal
defendants, by statute and court rule and not by any constitutional
right. Rivera, 556 U.S. at ___, 129 S. Ct. at 1453, 173 L. Ed. 2d at 328–
29; see also State v. Smith, 132 Iowa 645, 647, 109 N.W. 115, 116
(1906). We have already determined the district court erroneously
prevented Mootz from using one of his peremptory strikes on Garcia.
Rule 2.18 does not provide a remedy for a violation. Our task is to
determine the remedy for a defendant when he is wrongfully prohibited
from using a peremptory strike on a particular juror in violation of rule
2.18(9) and that juror is ultimately seated.
18
Iowa court rules have the force and effect of laws, and therefore
“we interpret rules in the same manner we interpret statutes.” City of
Sioux City v. Freese, 611 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Iowa 2000). Mootz’s remedy,
therefore, is a matter of statutory interpretation. When interpreting a
statute, our goal is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Cox v.
State, 686 N.W.2d 209, 213 (Iowa 2004). When the statutory language is
silent, legislative intent can be gleaned from the purposes and underlying
policies of the statute, along with the consequences of various
interpretations. Id.
Rule 2.18(9) allows a defendant ten, six, or four peremptory
strikes, depending on the severity of the crime charged. Since the
Constitution only requires the defendant be tried before a fair and
impartial jury, peremptory challenges are a right given to the defendant
beyond what the Constitution requires. Rivera, 556 U.S. at ___, 129 S.
Ct. at 1453, 173 L. Ed. 2d at 329. We have stated that “courts should
permit the freest exercise of that right within the limits fixed by the
legislature. It is, as Blackstone says, ‘an arbitrary and capricious right,
and it must be exercised with full freedom, or it fails of its purpose.’ ”
State v. Hunter, 118 Iowa 686, 691, 92 N.W. 872, 874 (1902) (quoting 4
William Blackstone, Commentaries 353). It has been a long-standing
principle of this court that “[t]he statute gives the right absolutely, and, if
denied, prejudice is conclusively presumed.” Id. at 690–91, 92 N.W. at
873; see also Spencer v. De France, 3 Greene 216, 218 (Iowa 1851) (“It
was error, therefore, in the court to refuse the challenge, and as we do
not discover any other error in the record, the judgment is reversed upon
this point, and a trial de novo awarded.”).
The State argues we retreated from this rule in Neuendorf when we
stated,
19
In the absence of some factual showing that . . . a juror [was]
seated who was not impartial, the existence of prejudice is
entirely speculative. We believe it is too speculative to justify
overturning the verdict of the jury on that basis alone.
Neuendorf, 509 N.W.2d at 746. In Neuendorf, the trial court erroneously
denied a challenge for cause to a juror. Id. The defendant was then
“forced to waste a peremptory challenge” to remove the objectionable
juror. Id. at 747. While our prior precedent had presumed prejudice and
required automatic reversal in such a situation, we abandoned that rule
in favor of a rule that required the defendant to show that the jury that
ultimately sat was in some way biased against the defendant. Id. at 745–
47 (overruling State v. Beckwith, 242 Iowa 228, 46 N.W.2d 20 (1951)).
Beckwith cited State v. Reed, 201 Iowa 1352, 208 N.W. 308 (1926),
for the proposition that prejudice must be presumed when a defendant is
forced use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have
been removed for cause. 242 Iowa at 232, 46 N.W.2d at 23. Reed
addressed the same situation as Beckwith and Neuendorf. A defendant
challenged a juror for cause, the challenge was erroneously denied, and
the defendant subsequently removed the objectionable juror with one of
his peremptory challenges. Reed, 201 Iowa at 1353, 208 N.W. at 309.
As in Beckwith, we found that removing the juror through the use of a
peremptory challenge did not cure the trial court’s error and that
prejudice would be presumed. Id. at 1353–54, 208 N.W. at 309.
Specifically, we stated,
The statute gives a defendant in a criminal case two kinds of
challenges, one for cause and one peremptorily. One of
these classes is as valuable to the defendant as the other.
The court has no right to deprive the defendant of the full
number of statutory peremptory challenges given him by
overruling challenges for cause and thus requiring a
defendant to use his peremptory challenges against jurors to
whom the challenge for cause should have been sustained.
20
Id. Neuendorf makes clear that forcing a defendant to “waste” a
peremptory challenge to correct the trial court’s erroneous denial of a
challenge for cause, as the defendants in Beckwith and Reed were forced
to do, will no longer result in a presumption of prejudice. See Neuendorf,
509 N.W.2d at 747. This holding is irreconcilable with the language we
have just quoted from Reed. Accordingly, we now recognize that Reed,
like Beckwith, has been overruled by Neuendorf.
The State argues that because the jury that convicted Mootz was
also unbiased, Neuendorf should control and Mootz’s conviction should
be affirmed. However, this is the only relevant factual similarity between
Mootz’s case and the factual situations presented by Reed, Beckwith and
Neuendorf. It is true that none of the juries involved in any of these
cases were constitutionally defective. However, as we have noted, this
case does not involve constitutional concerns. Instead, it focuses on the
remedy to be given to a defendant who is improperly denied the right to
exercise the peremptory challenges rule 2.18(9) guarantees him.
Reed, Beckwith and Neuendorf are distinguishable from Mootz’s
case in two important respects. The first distinction is that Reed,
Beckwith and Neuendorf all address the remedy for a litigant who is
wrongly denied a challenge for cause. Reed and Beckwith both stand for
the proposition that peremptory challenges are not given to a defendant
to correct erroneous rulings on challenges for cause. Beckwith, 242 Iowa
at 232, 46 N.W.2d at 23; Reed, 201 Iowa at 1353–54, 208 N.W. at 309.
Under those cases, if a defendant were forced to use one of his few
peremptory challenges for this purpose, prejudice would have been
presumed. Beckwith, 242 Iowa at 232, 46 N.W.2d at 23; Reed, 201 Iowa
at 1354, 208 N.W. at 309. Neuendorf repudiated this principle, holding
that prejudice will no longer be presumed when a defendant is forced to
21
use a peremptory challenge to correct the court’s erroneous ruling on a
challenge for cause. 509 N.W.2d at 746–47.
A peremptory challenge serves different purposes than a challenge
for cause, and therefore its erroneous denial requires a different remedy.
Mootz was denied the opportunity to exercise a peremptory challenge
against a specific juror. The juror ultimately sat on the jury that
convicted Mootz. The defendant in Neuendorf was forced to “waste” a
peremptory challenge to correct the court’s error. 509 N.W.2d at 747.
We held that being forced to waste a peremptory challenge was not the
type of error that required a presumption of prejudice. Id. However,
once Neuendorf exercised his peremptory challenge, the court properly
permitted the strike and removed the objectionable juror. Thus, we did
not have occasion to reach the issue presented by Mootz in this case.
One purpose of a peremptory challenge is to serve as a safeguard
against an unjust conviction. Hunter, 118 Iowa at 691, 92 N.W. at 874.
In Neuendorf, the peremptory challenge served this exact purpose. If
Neuendorf had not been allowed to exercise his peremptory challenge
against the objectionable juror, that juror would have stayed on the jury,
and the conviction would have been overturned because the jury that
convicted him would have been found unconstitutionally biased on
appeal. See State v. Tillman, 514 N.W.2d 105, 108 (Iowa 1994).
Neuendorf demonstrates the critical role peremptory challenges can play
in preventing unjust convictions. By preventing Mootz from exercising
his strike, the district court increased the chances that a juror who
might later be found to be removable for cause would end up sitting on
the jury. Neuendorf does not address the wrongful denial of a
peremptory challenge. Therefore, it in no way represents a retreat from
our earlier cases that require automatic reversal of a conviction when a
22
juror is allowed to remain on the jury despite the defendant’s valid
objection to his presence expressed in the form of a peremptory
challenge. See Hunter, 118 Iowa at 691–92, 92 N.W. at 873–74.
A second, more important distinction between Mootz’s case and
those of Reed, Beckwith and Neuendorf is that unlike the jurors at issue
in Reed, Beckwith and Neuendorf, the objectionable juror actually sat on
the jury that convicted Mootz. The defendants in Reed, Beckwith and
Neuendorf were not actually judged by the jurors they properly found
objectionable. Mootz was. Allowing a juror to sit on a jury when the
defendant properly objected to that juror’s presence poses a problem not
addressed by Reed, Beckwith or Neuendorf.
More recently, we have held that prejudice will not be presumed
when a court erroneously grants a litigant’s challenge for cause. See
Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006). This
case is also distinguishable from the case at bar. In Summy, the plaintiff
sued the city of Des Moines after he was struck in the eye with a golf
ball. Id. at 335–36. Summy filed a motion to exclude all Des Moines
residents from the jury panel. Id. at 336. He argued “that because a
significant verdict was likely and because such a verdict would result in
substantially higher taxes, all Des Moines property owners would have a
personal interest adverse to the plaintiff.” Id. at 339. The district court
denied Summy’s request to remove all Des Moines residents from the
jury panel, but ruled that all property owners would be excused. Id. at
336. We noted that “[p]rior to 1984, this court had routinely held that
‘when an action in tort is brought against a municipality . . . [the]
plaintiff may . . . effectively challenge any members of the jury panel who
are taxpayers in the defendant municipality.’ ” Id. at 338 (citations
23
omitted). However, in 1984, the legislature enacted section 624.11A,
which stated,
When selecting a jury in a trial in which a municipality
is a defendant, a juror challenge based on the potential
juror’s status as a taxpayer of that municipality shall not be
allowed unless a real, substantial, and immediate interest is
shown which would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.
Iowa Code § 624.11A. We found the statute “require[d] a demonstration
of bias on the part of each juror sought to be excluded.” Summy, 708
N.W.2d at 339. The district court had not required such a showing prior
to excusing all owners of Des Moines property from the jury panel and
had therefore abused its discretion. Id.
Having established that the district court failed to comply with
section 624.11A, we then turned to the question of the defendant’s
remedy. Id. We stated, “Prejudice from the erroneous exclusion of a
juror will not be presumed. Rather, a party claiming prejudice must
establish that the resulting jury was not impartial and competent.” Id.
(citations omitted). We went on to note, “The City has not demonstrated,
nor even claimed, that the trial court’s error forced the City to leave an
objectionable juror on the jury. In the absence of such a showing, we
cannot find prejudice.” Id. at 340.
There are several key differences between the error found in
Summy and the error committed by the trial court in this case. First, as
we noted in Summy, the trial court’s error did not result in the defendant
being forced to leave an objectionable juror on the jury. Id. Mootz felt
that Garcia’s experiences as a bartender and his past interactions with
law enforcement might prejudice him against Mootz. Though these
biases fell short of the standard for a challenge for cause, they led Mootz
to believe that Garcia would be sympathetic to the State’s case against
24
him. In that sense, Mootz found Garcia to be an objectionable juror who
Mootz properly sought to remove by using one of his peremptory strikes.
Unlike the defendant in Summy, Mootz’s case was decided by a jury that
included a juror that Mootz found objectionable and who he had every
right to remove from the jury.
Second, in Summy, we were fashioning a remedy for those
instances where a district court has abused its discretion and
erroneously excluded jurors from the panel based on an incorrect
interpretation of section 624.11A. See id. at 339. In this case, we are
asked to determine the proper remedy for the wrongful denial of a
statutorily guaranteed peremptory challenge based on the district court’s
interpretation of Batson and its progeny. It is true, as a general
principle, “that courts normally apply the prejudice standard to decide if
defects and errors in the jury-selection process will support a reversal of
the judgment.” Id. at 345 (Cady, J., dissenting). Summy and Neuendorf
are both examples of this general principle. However, as the dissent in
Summy noted, “While the landscape of the law is dominated by the
primary colors of general principles, subtle shades of exceptions must be
observed to fully depict the overall brilliance of the composite of justice.”
Id. The erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge is one such “subtle
shade of exception.”
Though not constitutionally mandated, the peremptory challenge
has long played a fundamental role in the jury selection process. See,
e.g., Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 481, 110 S. Ct. 803, 808, 107 L.
Ed. 2d 905, 917 (1990) (“The tradition of peremptory challenges . . . was
already venerable at the time of Blackstone, was reflected in a federal
statute enacted by the same Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights,
was recognized in an opinion by Justice Story to be part of the common
25
law of the United States, and has endured through two centuries in all
the States.” (internal citations omitted)). Peremptory challenges ensure
the jury that hears the case is acceptable to the parties involved and
preserve “ ‘the role of litigants in determining the jury’s composition.’ ”
See McCollum, 505 U.S. at 57, 112 S. Ct. at 2358, 120 L. Ed. 2d at 50
(citation omitted); see also Johnson v. City of Waterloo, 140 Iowa 670,
671–72, 119 N.W. 70, 71 (1909) (noting that when a party fails to use all
its peremptory challenges, “the jurors before whom the cause was tried
are presumed to have been acceptable to it”). Voir dire is a very short
window of time for attorneys and the court to determine whether a juror
will be unbiased and impartial. The peremptory challenge allows the
parties to “eliminate those jurors perceived as harboring subtle biases
with regard to the case, which were not elicited on voir dire or which do
not establish legal cause for challenge.” Commonwealth v. Hampton, 928
N.E.2d 917, 927 (Mass. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). The peremptory challenge plays a unique role in our legal
tradition, and therefore the denial of a peremptory challenge results in a
unique remedy.
The State notes Rivera does not require an automatic reversal rule
in order to meet minimal due process standards under the Federal
Constitution. See Rivera, 556 U.S. at ___, 129 S. Ct. at 1456, 173 L. Ed.
2d at 331. Since the erroneous denial of the use of a peremptory
challenge is not a due process violation, the State argues there is no need
for an automatic reversal rule in situations like the one before us.
However, as noted above, peremptory challenges are a statutory, as
opposed to a constitutional, right. Therefore, in resolving this case, we
are not limited to the minimal standards required by due process. We
are instead asked to interpret rule 2.18(9) to ascertain the remedy that
26
we believe the legislature intended to provide defendants who were
wrongfully denied the use of peremptory strikes provided by rule 2.18(9).
In support of an automatic reversal rule, Mootz argues that the
erroneous denial of a peremptory strike is not amenable to harmless
error analysis because of the difficulty in showing actual prejudice. See,
e.g., State v. McLean, 815 A.2d 799, 805 (Me. 2002); Angus v. State, 695
N.W.2d 109, 118 (Minn. 2005); State v. Vreen, 26 P.3d 236, 238–40
(Wash. 2001). But see Rivera, 879 N.E.2d at 888; Bell, 702 N.W.2d at
138–41. This argument has merit. The State has not provided, nor can
we conceive of, any situation in which a defendant could ever show
prejudice arising out of the wrongful denial of a peremptory challenge
where, as is the case here, the juror was not also removable by a
challenge for cause. A defendant could only show prejudice by showing
that the juror he sought to remove was biased. However, if the juror
were biased, then the juror would be removable for cause, and the
question regarding the peremptory challenge would become moot.
The Supreme Court’s holding in Rivera does not dispute this point.
Rather, it merely states that an erroneous ruling on a reverse-Batson
challenge is not a structural error of a constitutional dimension requiring
automatic reversal and leaves to the states to decide whether the
“mistaken denial of a peremptory challenge is reversible error per se.”
Rivera, 556 U.S. at ___, 129 S. Ct. at 1455–56, 173 L. Ed. 2d at 331.
Following Rivera, states have continued to apply an automatic reversal
rule grounded in state law, not the Federal Constitution. See People v.
Hecker, 942 N.E.2d 248, 271–72 (N.Y. 2010), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,
131 S. Ct. 2117, 179 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2011); Hampton, 928 N.E.2d at 927.
Denying the free exercise of peremptory challenges does not violate
the Constitution, but it forces the defendant to be judged by a jury that
27
includes a juror that is objectionable to him. When this occurs, and the
defendant properly objected to the juror by attempting to use a
peremptory challenge, and that objection is wrongly overruled, we will
presume the error is prejudicial. Any other conclusion would leave the
defendant without a remedy. We do not think this is the result intended
when rule 2.18(9) was drafted.
Rule 2.18(9) requires automatic reversal of a defendant’s conviction
when the trial court’s erroneous ruling on a reverse-Batson challenge
leads to the denial of one of the defendant’s peremptory challenges. We
do not believe that an automatic reversal rule will result in trial courts
and prosecutors being less zealous in their attempts to stop purposeful
racial discrimination by defendants. Adherence to the proper, three-step
Batson analysis is sufficient to ensure that all parties are allowed to use
their peremptory challenges while complying with the Constitution’s
equal protection requirements. Accord Hecker, 942 N.E.2d at 272–73.
An automatic reversal rule will help ensure a district court will not
deprive criminal defendants of their right to peremptory challenges in an
effort to safeguard the equal protection rights of jurors, without first
undertaking a thorough Batson analysis.
IV. Disposition.
Mootz sought to remove a juror using one of his peremptory
challenges guaranteed by rule 2.18(9). The district court, without
determining Mootz was engaging in purposeful racial discrimination,
denied his peremptory challenge and insisted the objectionable juror be
allowed to sit on the jury. This ruling was in error. It would be an
impossible burden to require Mootz, or any other similarly situated
defendant, to show actual prejudice in order to reverse his conviction.
Such an interpretation would eliminate any remedy for violations of rule
28
2.18(9). We therefore require automatic reversal whenever a defendant is
denied the use of a peremptory challenge based on an erroneous
interpretation of Batson and its progeny and the objectionable juror is
improperly seated.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All justices concur except Wiggins, J., who concurs specially and
Mansfield, J., who takes no part.
29
#10–0418, State v. Mootz
WIGGINS, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in the decision because we should presume prejudice
occurs when the court allows a juror who it should have excluded to sit
on the jury. The reason I am writing specially is to state that a logical
extension of this rule occurs when the court forces a party to use a
peremptory challenge to strike a juror who the court should have
removed, but failed to do so, for cause.
Factually, when a party is required to use a peremptory challenge
to strike a juror who the court should have excused for cause, that party
is unable to use that peremptory strike to remove another questionable
juror. In this circumstance, the court allows a questionable juror who
should not be on the jury to sit, and we should presume prejudice
occurred. This was the rule in State v. Beckwith, 242 Iowa 228, 232, 46
N.W.2d 20, 23 (1951), and State v. Reed, 201 Iowa 1352, 1353–54, 208
N.W. 308, 309 (1926), before this court expressly overruled Beckwith and
impliedly overruled Reed in State v. Neuendorf, 509 N.W.2d 743, 746
(Iowa 1993). Although I believe this court was wrong when it overruled
Beckwith and Reed in Neuendorf, we will have to leave this issue for
another day when confronted with the proper factual situation.