## Facts

- Joseph Hines, an African American man, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Columbus police officers used excessive force during his arrest, causing physical and psychological injuries.
- After dismissals and summary judgment on several claims and defendants, the case proceeded to a jury trial on excessive-force claims against three officers.
- The jury found for Hines on excessive-force liability and awarded $30,000 in compensatory damages; the district court also awarded more than $75,000 in attorney’s fees.
- During voir dire, the venire included two African American prospective jurors.
- The City used a peremptory strike against the first African American prospective juror; Hines did not object at the time or request an explanation.
- When the City sought to strike the second African American prospective juror, Hines objected, arguing the strikes showed a racial pattern.
- The district court required the City to give a race-neutral reason for the second strike, accepted the explanation as race-neutral, and allowed the strike.
- Hines moved for a new trial based on an alleged Batson violation; the district court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in denying a new trial by rejecting Hines’s Batson challenge to the City’s peremptory strikes of the two African American prospective jurors.
2. Whether Hines’s failure to object contemporaneously to the first strike and to demand an explanation affected the scope and review of his Batson claim.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Hines’s motion for a new trial.
- The court held that Hines did not carry his burden to prove purposeful discrimination under Batson.
- The court concluded the district court did not clearly err in accepting the City’s race-neutral explanation for striking the second African American prospective juror.
- The jury’s verdict and damages award, and the attorney’s fee award, remained intact.

## Legal Principles

- Batson applies a three-step inquiry: (1) prima facie showing of racial motivation; (2) proponent’s facially race-neutral reason; (3) determination whether the opponent proved purposeful discrimination.
- At Batson step two, a stated reason need only be facially race-neutral; it need not be persuasive or plausible, and the question is whether discriminatory intent is inherent in the explanation.
- The opponent of the strike bears the ultimate burden of persuasion on purposeful discrimination.
- Appellate review of Batson determinations is for clear error, with substantial deference to the trial court’s credibility findings.
- Failure to make a timely Batson objection and to obtain race-neutral explanations can limit the record and constrain later review.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the district court’s acceptance of the City’s race-neutral explanation and its finding of no purposeful discrimination were not clearly erroneous, so Hines was not entitled to a new trial on his Batson challenge.


Hines v. City of Columbus, 676 F. App’x 546 (6th Cir. 2017)