On June 1, 2018, in
Travelers v. Gallo, No.5D16-3158, the Florida Fifth DCA reversed a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff in a UIM case and remanded the case for a new trial because
of the trial court’s failure to conduct the necessary analysis of
an allegedly race-based peremptory juror challenge by defense counsel.
The prospective juror had sought to strike the prospective African-American
juror using a peremptory challenge, but plaintiff’s counsel objected,
demanding a race-neutral reason for the strike in conformity with the
three-step process established by the Florida Supreme Court in
Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 764 (Fla. 1996). Defense counsel asserted a race-neutral
reason, the prospective juror’s alleged inattentiveness, which was
disputed by plaintiff’s counsel but corroborated, at least in part,
by observations of the trial court (if the trial court had not corroborated
the defendant’s observations, denial of the peremptory challenge
would have been called for at that time). According to the Fifth DCA,
under the
Melbourne methodology the trial court was then required to determine whether the
explanation was genuine rather than pretextual. The trial court failed
to conduct this analysis, finding that defense counsel’s explanation
was “legally insufficient” while simultaneously maintaining
that the defense had not made a race-based strike.
