## Facts

- Jimmy Elem, a Black defendant, was tried in Missouri state court for second-degree robbery.
- During voir dire, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike two Black male venirepersons.
- Elem objected on Batson grounds, alleging racially discriminatory jury selection.
- The prosecutor explained one strike by citing the juror’s long, curly, “unkempt” hair, mustache, and goatee, stating he did not like how the jurors looked and found the facial hair “suspicious.”
- The prosecutor explained the other strike by citing similar appearance concerns and asserted concern that the juror’s prior experience with an armed robbery might affect how he viewed a robbery charge without a gun.
- The trial court overruled the Batson objection and seated the jury; Elem was convicted.
- Missouri appellate courts affirmed; Elem then sought federal habeas relief.
- The Eighth Circuit granted relief, holding the prosecutor’s appearance-based explanation was not a legitimate race-neutral reason because it was not “plausible.”

## Issues

1. At Batson step two, must the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation be plausible or persuasive, or is it sufficient that it is facially race-neutral?
2. In federal habeas review, may a federal appellate court reject a state court’s no-discrimination finding by treating an implausible explanation as failing step two rather than evaluating intent at step three with deference to state fact-finding?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and remanded.
- Batson step two imposes only a burden of production: the proponent of the strike must offer a facially race-neutral explanation.
- The explanation “does not demand” persuasiveness or plausibility; even trivial, illogical, or “silly” reasons may satisfy step two if not inherently racial.
- The Eighth Circuit erred by effectively merging step two and step three and by treating the explanation’s reasonableness as dispositive rather than focusing on discriminatory intent.
- The trial court’s step-three credibility and intent determination is a factual finding entitled to deference on review, including in habeas proceedings when supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- Batson establishes a three-step framework: (1) prima facie showing of discrimination, (2) race-neutral explanation, and (3) determination of purposeful discrimination.
- At step two, the sole question is facial race neutrality: unless discriminatory intent is inherent in the stated reason, the reason is deemed race neutral.
- Whether a facially race-neutral reason is a pretext for discrimination is addressed at step three through the trial court’s credibility and intent findings.
- On federal habeas review, state court factual findings on discriminatory intent are presumed correct when fairly supported by the record, and federal courts may not substitute their own credibility judgments.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a prosecutor satisfies Batson’s step-two burden by offering any facially race-neutral reason for a peremptory strike, regardless of plausibility, and that pretext and discriminatory intent are evaluated at step three with substantial deference to the trial court, particularly on habeas review.


Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995)