United States v. Damon Elliott

Case: 10-40775 Document: 00511832522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 24, 2012
No. 10-40775
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:08-CR-121-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and ELROD, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
A jury found Damon Emanuel Elliott guilty of two counts of assault of a
corrections officer and one count of possession of contraband. He was sentenced
to a total of 150 months in prison. On appeal, he challenges the Government’s
use of a peremptory strike to excuse venireperson Margie Jacques, arguing that
it violated his constitutional rights in light of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79(1986). In Batson, the Court delineated a three-step analysis for evaluation of
a defendant's claim that a prosecutor used a peremptory strike in a racially
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 10-40775 Document: 00511832522 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2012
No. 10-40775
discriminatory manner: (1) a defendant must make a prima facie showing that
the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges on the basis of race; (2) the
burden then shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral reason for
striking the juror in question; and (3) the trial court must determine whether the
defendant carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Moody v.
Quarterman, 476 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2007).
We review the district court’s Batson determination for clear error. See
United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399, 404 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court’s
decision that a prosecutor had a race-neutral reason for striking a member of the
venire is a credibility determination which is entitled to deference. United
States v. De La Rosa, 911 F.2d 985, 991 (5th Cir. 1990).
The record supports the district court’s finding that the Government
provided racially-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenge at issue.
Specifically, Jacques’s demeanor and her inattentiveness and disinterest were
valid reasons for her exclusion. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360-
61 (1991); United States v. Lance, 853 F.2d 1177, 1180-81 (5th Cir. 1988); Moore
v. Keller Industries, Inc., 948 F.2d 199, 202 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, the
district court itself confirmed on the record that Jacques was “quick, timid, and
in a hurry to sit down and to disengage from this whole process.” The district
court was in the best position to observe and judge Jacques’s demeanor during
voir dire. See United States v. Valley, 928 F.2d 130, 136 (5th Cir. 1991). Elliott
has not shown that the district court’s decision was clearly erroneous. See
Denman, 100 F.3d at 404. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2