United States v. Luis Santiago-Martinez

Good Law
58 F.3d 422·95 Daily Journal DAR 8073·1995 WL 364549·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15094·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4672
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 20, 199594-10350California358 words

Opinion

Opinion

We hold that the equal protection analysis in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) does not apply to prohibit peremptory strikes on the basis of obesity.

The defendant in this case was convicted on felony drug charges and now seeks to use the striking of obese venire persons to overturn his conviction. A detailed recitation of the facts is not necessary. It suffices to say that the prosecutor struck three venire persons whom defendant’s counsel claimed were obese. Defense counsel himself claimed to be obese, although he acknowledged that the defendant was not. The district court disagreed with defense counsel’s claim of his own obesity, and also stated that it did not regard at least one of the struck venire persons to be obese. The district court denied defense counsel’s challenge.

Batson held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs the exercise of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor in a criminal trial. Id. at 89 , 106 S.Ct. at 1718 . Batson involved a strike based on race, but the Supreme Court has applied its rationale to forbid strikes based solely on gender as well. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. -,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.