Preview:

Circuit Co urt for Baltim ore Cou nty Criminal No. 00 CR 1934

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND September Term, 2002 ______________________________________________ No. 20 JEROME MAURICE EDMONDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND ______________________________________________ Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ. ______________________________________________ Opinion by Raker, J. ______________________________________________ Filed: December 18, 2002

This case involves the exercise of pe remptory challenges unde r Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986). The principle question raised in the certiorari p etition is whether the trial court erred in creating a remedy after finding a Batson violation. Unfortunately, because the trial court failed to make the necessary findings as to purposeful discrimination requ ired by Batson, we are un able to answer the question. We shall therefore remand the case to the trial court to enable the court to evaluate the credibility of the prosecutor's race-neu tral explanatio ns and to determ ine wh ether pe titioner c arried h is burde n of pr oving p urpose ful disc riminatio n. As a predicate to petitioner's conclusion that the prosecutor exercised p eremptory challenges in violation of the strictures of Batson, he maintains that a uniform policy of exercising a peremptory challenge to all jurors with relatives who have been convicted of a crime, without regard to the particular circum stances of the case, is inh erently discriminatory and violates the rubrics of Batson. We do not agr ee.

I. Jerome Maurice Ed monds, petitioner, was ind icted by the Grand Jury for Baltimore County for first-degree murder, use of a handgun in the commission of a felo ny, use of a handgu n in a crime of violenc e, attempted robbery, and c onspiracy to commit robbery in the shooting death of a Caucasian youth. The State served Edmonds with a notice o f inte nt to seek the d eath penalty. 1

Before jury selection, Edmonds elected to be sentenced by the court; therefore, the court as ked no death-q ualifying questio ns durin g voir d ire. See Maryland Code (1957,

1

The trial commenced on February 6, 2001, in the Circuit Court for B altimore Cou nty. Petitioner is African American. The trial court conducted v oir dire of nin etynine potential jurors 2 and included in the voir dire the following question: "Is there any member of the jury panel or any memb er of your immediate family who has been the victim of a crime or, conversely, have you or any member of your immediate family been convicted of a crime?" At the conclu sion of the v oir dire, forty-two prospective jurors remained, six of whom were African American Five of the six African-American venirepersons

responded to voir dire questions. Juror num ber 704 indicated that her b rother had been murdered by a drug dealer in New York City and that she believed the killer had received leniency because the defendant's brother was a police officer. Ms. Ashe, juror number 614, reported that, twenty years ago, her sister had used an alias, and had been convicted of a drug violation. Ms. Ashe stated that she could be impartial. Juror number 56

discussed pressing work obligations. Ms. Smith, juror number 719, believed her nephew had been con victed of a ttempted m urder but th ought that h e had been treated fairly and that she could be impartial as a juror. Ms. Nelson, juror number 66, indicated that she

1996 Repl. Vol., 2000 Supp.) Article 27,

Download Edmonds v. State.pdf

Maryland Law