Did the prosecution's peremptory strikes violate Williamson's rights under Batson v. Kentucky (1986)?

Question

Williamson was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. During voir dire questioning the trial judge asked whether "any member of the panel had any experience involving yourself, any member of your family, or any close friend that relates to the use or possession of illegal drugs or narcotics?" The judge also asked a similar question in regard to criminal matters. In response to these questions, thirteen members of the venire—including the only two black venire members— responded that they, a family member, or a close friend had some drug involvement. During follow-up questions, the prosecution asked questions only of the black venire members, focusing on their "associations" with persons who had drug involvement, and used peremptory strikes against the two black venire members. Williamson objected, arguing that the strikes were based on race. The prosecution offered, as a race neutral explanation, that the two struck African American jurors were "the only persons that the government is aware of on the panel who stated that they had friends and relatives. . . . that had been convicted of drug offenses and were still using drugs and that she associated with both the friends and the relatives." The trial court overruled Williamson's Batson objection.

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Yes. The trial court erred in overruled Williamson's Batson objection.