A divided South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered a new trial in an auto accident case because defense counsel did not offer a “race-neutral” reason for striking an African-American man with dreadlocks from the jury.

During jury selection, attorney C. Anthony Harris of Cheraw, S.C., expressed “some uneasiness” about the juror, explaining that “he’s about the only member of the jury I see out there with very long dreadlocks” and his appearance including the dreadlocks “gave me some pause.”

Under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), an attorney who peremptorily strikes an African-American juror must provide a “neutral explanation” for doing so. Florence County Circuit Court Judge James E. Brogdon denied the plaintiff's Batson motion, saying he did not believe Harris used the juror's hairstyle as a pretext for striking him because of his race.

The jury –- sans any dreadlocks -– eventually awarded the plaintiff, Lakhitia McCrea, $10,985 in damages.

But in a recent decision, a 3-2 majority of the Supreme Court said McCrea was entitled to a retrial because Brogdon failed to “elicit[ ] a race-neutral reason for the strike” from Harris, thereby “bypass[ing] an evidentiary requirement that goes to the very heart of a Batson inquiry.”

“Regardless of their gradual infiltration into mainstream American society, dreadlocks retain their roots as a religious and social symbol of historically black cultures,” Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote for the majority. “For this reason, we hold that counsel’s explanation that the juror’s dreadlocks caused him 'uneasiness' was insufficient to satisfy the race-neutral requirement in the second step of the trial court’s Batson analysis.”

The dissent found the case analogous to Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995), in which the U.S. Supreme Court said a prosecutor properly exercised a peremptory strike because the juror's “long, unkempt hair” looked “suspicious.”

“[T]he decision to wear one’s hair in the dreadlocks hairstyle is not peculiar to any race,” Justice James E. Moore wrote, noting that it “has been worn as a religious choice by, for example, Hindus and Rastafarians” and in recent years “has been practiced by both African-Americans and Caucasians.”

During oral arguments in the case, Harris said “American Idol” finalist Jason Castro, who is white, has dreadlocks.

But Toal said Purkett is distinguishable because “While we agree that the growing of long, unkempt hair is not associated with any race, we find that counsel’s specific reference to the juror’s hair as 'dreadlocks' in conjunction with an otherwise vague explanation for the strike carries with it an inherently discriminatory intent.”

According to McCrea's attorney, she decided to appeal because she was “very disappointed” in the verdict. She had sought more than $9,000 in personal damages, almost $3,000 in lost wages and more than $7,000 in property damages.

The Supreme Court's decision isn't just about dreadlocks, an ACLU official told the Columbia State newspaper. “It’s a decision that says in jury selection, the court and attorneys need to exercise very strict care that there is no discrimination or even an appearance of discrimination.”

By Matthew Heller
11/21/08