JOSE CASIMIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal upheld a conviction where the trial court did not inquire into the state's peremptory challenges of four Black jurors. The court found no reversible error because the defendant expressly waived any objections to jury composition after being given the opportunity to strike the entire panel and begin anew.
The trial court did not reversibly err because the defendant expressly waived his objections to jury composition after being given an opportunity to cure any defect. Additionally, the state provided reasons for cause challenges to each juror, and the record established these reasons were race-neutral and sufficiently explained the peremptory challenges.
[1] A defendant waives the right to challenge jury composition defects by expressly agreeing to proceed with the jury after being offered an opportunity to cure the defect.
[2] A trial court is not required to inquire into the reasons for peremptory challenges of minority jurors when the record establishes legitimate, non-racial grounds for the…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“defendant cannot expressly pass up an opportunity to cure a defect in jury composition and then urge the trial court be reversed because of defect”
Establishes the waiver doctrine - a defendant cannot strategically ignore an opportunity to challenge jury composition and later appeal based on that same composition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state exercised peremptory challenges against four Black jurors. The trial court subsequently discovered that the venire had signed an oath paper …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Batson Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We conclude that the trial court did not reversibly err by failing to inquire concerning the reasons that the state peremptorily challenged four black jurors from the jury panel.
Subsequent to the exercise of those challenges, the defense was given the opportunity to strike the entire panel and begin again, based on the court’s discovery that the venire had signed a paper that contained an oath, but the veniremen had not been specifically sworn.
The defendant chose instead to announce that he wanted this jury panel and waived all objections and motions concerning its composition. See United States v. Fuentes-Coba, 738 F. 2d 1191, 1198 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1213, 105 S.Ct. 1186, 84 L.Ed.2d 333 (1985) (defendant cannot expressly pass up an opportunity to cure a defect in jury composition and then urge the trial court be reversed because of defect); see also Hair v. State, 428 So. 2d 760, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Williams v. State, 101 So. 2d 877, 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). The issue upon which the defendant bases his appeal was therefore waived, as is demonstrated by the following colloquy:
STATE: If the defense is waiving any objection to the composition of this jury and the way they were placed under oath and voir dire examination, then there is no necessity for a mistrial.
THE COURT: I agree with you.
I am listening to it.
I want justice to be done and everyone to feel they have had a fair trial.
Mr. Casimiro, now, I assume, through his lawyers, is saying, he wishes to go forward and we will go forward.
THE COURT: Mr. Casimiro has agreed with waiving and withdrawing any motions as to striking the jury panel, right, Mr. Houlihan and Mr. Nally?
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: (Indicating the affirmative.)
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Yes.
Moreover, the challenge of the four black jurors, by itself, was insufficient to require an inquiry where the record clearly established why the challenged persons were unacceptable state jurors. See Woods v. State, 490 So. 2d 24 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 954, 107 S.Ct. 446, 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986); Thomas v. State, 502 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 509 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.1987). The state did give reasons where in each case it moved to challenge the juror for cause and that motion was denied. An examination of the record reveals that the reasons given for the cause challenges certainly established that the peremptory challenges were not motivated solely by race.
Accordingly, this case is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Woods v. State, 490 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1986)
- Cally v. Hoffman, 469 U.S. 1213 (U.S. 1985)
- United States v. Fuentes-Coba, 738 F.2d 1191 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Mendel v. United States, 469 U.S. 1213 (U.S. 1985)
- Williams v. State, 101 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Hair v. State, 428 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Thomas v. State, 502 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- United States Steel Corp. v. Pryor, 479 U.S. 954 (U.S. 1986)
- Reed v. United States, 479 U.S. 954 (U.S. 1986)