Form 8A:10 Response to Batson Motion

{CAPTION - FORM 1B:1}

{PARTY}'S RESPONSE TO {ADVERSE PARTY}'S BATSONMOTION

{Party} opposes {adverse party}'s Batson challenge to {party}'s use of {his/her/its} peremptory challenges. {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Objecting to use of peremptory challenge - Batson," ch. 8-A, §7.3, p. 533.}

A. Introduction

1. Plaintiff is {name}; defendant is {name}.

2. Plaintiff sued defendant for {state basis of suit}.

3. {Party} exercised {number} of {his/her/its} peremptory challenges on the following jurors: {names of jurors excused}.

4. {Adverse party} objected to {party}'s use of peremptory challenges, arguing that such an objection is necessary to preserve the equal-protection rights of the excused jurors.

B. Argument

5. Although the court may dismiss a jury if litigants and jurors are denied equal-protection rights through the use of peremptory challenges, this is not a case in which the court should do so. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 97-98, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 1723-24 (1986).

6. The court should deny the Batsonchallenge for the following reasons:

{CHOOSE APPROPRIATE GROUNDS}

a. {Adverse party}'s Batson challenge was not made until after the court impaneled the jury. See Garcia v. Excel Corp., 102 F.3d 758, 759 (5th Cir. 1997). {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Timely object," ch. 8-A, §7.3.2(1)(a), p. 534.}

b. {Adverse party}'s Batson challenge was not made until after the court dismissed the excluded panel members. See Garcia v. Excel Corp., 102 F.3d 758, 759 (5th Cir. 1997). {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Timely object," ch. 8-A, §7.3.2(1)(a), p. 534.}

c. {Party} exercised {number} peremptory challenges against individuals who are not members of a protected classification. {Cite cases establishing that classification claimed by movant is not protected.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Protected classifications," ch. 8-A, §7.3.1, p. 533.}

d. {Adverse party} did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To establish a prima facie case that {party} used {his/her/its} peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner, {adverse party} must show (1) {party} exercised challenges to remove from the jury panel members of a cognizable protected group and (2) the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference that {party} excluded persons from the panel for a discriminatory purpose. See Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 168, 125 S. Ct. 2410, 2416 (2005). {Adverse party} has not established these elements. {Elaborate.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Make prima facie case," ch. 8-A, §7.3.2(1)(b), p. 534; "Introduce supporting evidence," ch. 8-A, §7.3.2(1)(c), p. 534.}

e. {Party} has neutral reasons for exercising peremptory challenges against the excused jurors. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768-69, 115 S. Ct. 1769, 1771-72 (1995); United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582, 599 (6th Cir. 2003). The reasons {party} exercised peremptory challenges against the excused jurors are {provide classification-neutral reason for each peremptory challenge alleged to be discriminatory}. Thus, even if the court finds that there is a presumption that {party} discriminated in {his/her/its} use of peremptory challenges, that presumption is rebutted. {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Rebut inference with facially neutral reason," ch. 8-A, §7.3.2(2), p. 535.}

C. Conclusion

7. {Briefly summarize the response.} For these reasons, {party} asks the court to overrule {adverse party}'s Batson challenge.