Page 15

              1-06-3039
- 15 -
Ill. App. 3d at 44, citing Rice, 546 U.S. at 338, 163 L. Ed. 2d at 831,126 S. Ct. at 973, citing Batson,
476 U.S. at 97-98, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 88, 106 S. Ct. at 1723; see also Easley, 192 Ill. 2d at 323-24.
Once the nonmoving party articulates race-neutral reasons for excusing the venireperson in question,
the trial court must then determine whether the moving party has carried his burden of establishing
purposeful discrimination. Mack, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 44, citing Rice, 546 U.S. at 338, 163 L. Ed. 2d
at 831, 126 S. Ct. at 973, citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 88-89, 106 S. Ct. at 1724.
At the third step, the trial court is supposed to evaluate the reasons provided by the
nonmoving party as well as the moving party’s claim that the proffered reasons are pretextual. Mack,
371 Ill. App. 3d at 44, citing Rice, 546 U.S. at 338, 163 L. Ed. 2d at 831, 126 S. Ct. at 973; People
v. Davis, 345 Ill. App. 3d 901, 906 (2004), citing People v. Pecor, 286 Ill. App. 3d 71, 74 (1996).
Finally, “[t]he trial court’s finding of whether purposeful discrimination has been proved is a finding
of fact and will not be overturned on review unless it is found to be clearly erroneous.” Mack, 371
Ill. App. 3d at 46, citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395, 409, 111
S. Ct. 1859, 1869 (1991); People v. Andrews, 155 Ill. 2d 286, 293-94 (1993).
1. The First Batson Objection
In the instant case, the record reveals that the defendant made two Batson objections and the
trial court ruled on the defendant’s objections. The defendant made her first Batson objection after
the State exercised its peremptory challenge on Knickerson and the defendant asked the State “to
state a reason for Ms. Knickerson.” In response, the trial court stated “[b]efore we get to that, I
would have to find the prim fails [sic] as there is already an African American on this jury.” The trial
court then took into consideration (1) the fact that another jury had already been selected; (2) the