Employment-Based Juror Strikes as Race-Neutral and Expert Funding Specificity: French v. State

Introduction

This commentary examines the landmark decision in French v. State, decided May 28, 2025, by the Supreme Court of Georgia. In this case, Timothy French was convicted of malice murder and armed robbery for the 2008 stabbing death of Arthur James Mosley, an elderly farmer. On appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial, French challenged four rulings: (1) the trial court’s rejection of his Batson challenge to a peremptory strike; (2) the denial of funds for a defense DNA expert; (3) the refusal to change venue; and (4) the denial of a mistrial. The Court affirmed on all points, reinforcing (a) that an employment-based peremptory strike is a race-neutral justification under Batson v. Kentucky, (b) that motions for expert funding must include detailed information, and (c) the principle that unbriefed claims are abandoned.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Georgia unanimously affirmed the trial court’s rulings:

• The State’s peremptory strike of a black juror employed by the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) was race-neutral under Batson because a juror’s employment is not peculiar to any race.
• French’s motion for funds to hire an “independent DNA expert” failed to provide required specifics: the expert’s identity, the tasks to be performed, and anticipated costs. Without such detail, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying funding.
• French’s venue-change and mistrial claims were deemed abandoned for lack of argument or citation to authority, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 22(1).

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court relied on several key precedents:

• Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986): Establishes the three-step framework for evaluating race-based peremptory strikes.
• Thomas v. State, 309 Ga. 488 (2020): Summarizes the Batson steps under Georgia law.
• Taylor v. State, 303 Ga. 624 (2018), and Trice v. State, 266 Ga. 102 (1995): Confirm that employment is a race-neutral ground for a peremptory strike.
• Williams v. State, 303 Ga. 474 (2018), and Finn v. State, 274 Ga. 675 (2002): Articulate the specificity requirement for motions seeking funds for expert witnesses.
• Supreme Court Rule 22(1): Holds that unbriefed issues are abandoned on appeal.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be broken down as follows:

1. Batson analysis:
   • Under Batson, once the State articulates a facially race-neutral reason for a strike (step 2), the prima facie issue (step 1) is moot.
   • The prosecutor’s concern—DFCS employees historically exhibited voting biases in his trials—was race-neutral. Prior Georgia decisions have recognized employment status as a valid non-racial justification.
   • The trial judge had broad discretion to assess credibility and found no evidence of racial animus. That factual determination is entitled to deference.
2. Expert funding motions:
   • An indigent defendant must show “with reasonable precision” why expert assistance is critical, what the expert will do, and the estimated cost.
   • French’s motion merely sought an anonymous “independent lab” to reanalyze DNA evidence. Without details—expert identity, scope of work, fees—the trial court could not evaluate the need or the reasonableness of costs.
3. Abandonment doctrine:
   • Claims not supported by argument, authority, or record citation are abandoned under Rule 22(1).
   • French offered only cursory statements as to venue and mistrial, without legal analysis or citations. Those issues were therefore waived.

3. Impact

This decision has three significant impacts:

• It reaffirms that employment-based justifications for peremptory strikes face only minimal scrutiny under Batson. Defense counsel should anticipate that challenges to such strikes will be difficult to sustain unless clear evidence of animus emerges.
• The Court reinforces the detailed-showing requirement for expert-funding motions. Criminal defense teams must budget in advance, identify proposed experts by name, outline the scope of work, and estimate fees with precision.
• The ruling underscores the abandonment rule: appellate briefs must present developed argument and record citations for each claim, or risk forfeiture.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Peremptory Strike

A tool allowing attorneys to remove a certain number of prospective jurors without stating cause. Not unlimited: cannot be used to discriminate.

Batson Framework

1. Plaintiff/defendant shows facts suggesting a racial strike.
2. Prosecutor offers a race-neutral reason.
3. Court decides if discrimination occurred.

Contact DNA

Genetic material left when an object or person touches another surface. In this case, a partial profile linked French to the victim’s clothing.

Motion for Expert Funds

A request by an indigent defendant for state‐provided money to hire specialists (e.g., DNA analysts). Must specify who, what, and how much.

Conclusion

French v. State clarifies important procedural and evidentiary standards in Georgia criminal law. It confirms that:

• A juror’s employment history is a valid, race-neutral basis for a peremptory strike under Batson, and credibility findings on this issue are entitled to deference.
• Motions for expert assistance must include specific details—prospective expert identity, scope of examination, and cost estimates—to satisfy due-process requirements.
• Appellate advocacy demands full legal analysis and citation for each claimed error or those claims will be deemed abandoned.

These principles will guide trial courts and litigants in jury selection challenges, expert-funding requests, and appellate briefing going forward.