Answer Brief of Appellee - Florida State University College of Law

Just the total number of them causes us concern when
we’re here on a sentencing proceeding. It’s on that
basis, Your Honor, we would move to strike her.
(R504). After the pertinent portion of voir dire was read back,
the State went on to argue:
Judge, what Defense Counsel has done in opposition and
argument against this is pick out particulars who had
one person and the number of them shoplifting, the
DUI, the one’s [sic] we’ve already addressed. You
know, that’s much lower magnitude than, first of all,
somebody’s who’s been to prison for a crime of
violence and somebody as close as a godson.
And not only in addition to that, as Miss Harp
indicated she has a number of family, friends, and
family members in addition to the godson, so we’re not
talking about one person, to her it’s a number, and
she’s got one in prison, she’s close to in prison, for
a violent felony.
When you put everything together, there’s no one else
that’s even close to that, nobody else has more than a
single person who’s still on the panel, no one else
that’s even close to her, and it’s for that basis --
it’s certainly race neutral. We’re here for sentencing
and she’s got obviously a number of family members and
friends who have been sentenced that causes us some
concerns and it’s a valid use of a peremptory strike.
(R513). In ruling on defense counsel’s objection, the trial
court stated:
Well, certainly the proffered reasons are neutral and
reasonable. I don’t think that somebody else has got
somebody else somewhere who’s been arrested or another
family member or friend that’s been convicted of a
crime and therefore this is not neutral and not
reasonable, I think you’ve got to look at the overall
picture.
Certainly the answers given by Mrs. Harp support the
reasons proffered for the neutrality of the challenge
and, you know, I just -- I can’t find that the reasons
25