Modified IRAC Analysis The fact of this case is the defense was challenging a strike of a juror, Zeniab Osman, that was made by the prosecution. This was the second juror that was struck from the case both being black individuals. The defense was claiming the strike was because of discrimination of a race. Under the statute created by Melbourne vs Florida (1996), a set of steps is to be taken when a peremptory strike is challenged as being discriminatory.
Those steps are:
1. The side objecting to the others use of a peremptory challenge on racial grounds has to make a timely objection, display that the juror is of a distinct racial group and request that the court ask the striking party its reasoning behind the strike.
2. The burden of production of …show more content…
Two of those factors were contended in this case; That the record does not show Osman having shared the liberal drug attitude the prosecutor placed on her and the prosecutor failed to sufficiently examine Osman again. In this case, both the prosecution and defense had satisfied the requirements of different statutes. Each proving the strike either to be justified or based on racial discrimination. The prosecution gave a s stronger agreement in which Osman was a young college student that was liberal and open to drugs. The other juror that was struck was based on the same reason. Since, this case is about a man selling counterfeit controlled substance, it makes sense that the prosecution would not want someone who is open to drug use. The courts final decision was for the prosecutors strike to be sustained. That the prosecution had fully supplied all the evidence to prove that striking was based on a perceived connection to drugs rather than a racial