CLAIM XI MR. BLANTON’S ATTORNEYS WERE INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO EFFECTIVELY PROTECT MR. BLANTON’S EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE'S EXCLUSION OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS FROM THE JURY CLAIM XI MR. BLANTON’S TRIAL ATTORNEYS WERE INEFFECTIVE IN THEIR. HANDLING OF MR. BLANTON’S EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE STATES’ EXCLUSION OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS FROM THE JURY CLAIM XII MR. BLANTON’S APPELLATE ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE ON APPEAL THAT BATSON IS APPLICABLE ‘TO SHUFFLES AND/OR FAILED TO PROTECT MR. BLANTON'S EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS BY PRESERVING THE RECORD FOR APPEAL SUCH THAT THE “SHUFFLE CLAIM” COULD. BE EFFECTIVELY PRESENTED A Overview Inthis claim, Mr. Blanton contends his trial attorneys and his appellate attorney were ineffective in failing to protect his constitutional rights regarding the racial composition of the jury. Mr. Blanton is an Aftican-American. Six of the 100 prospective jurors on the panel were African- Americans. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 4), OF those six jurors, three ‘were seated in front of the panel in positions which would have likely resulted in their selection forjury duty. Specifically, these African-American individuals were assigned seat 16‘numbers two, four and twenty in the order of their review for selection, (Defendant's Exhibit No. 4) ‘The Prosecution quickly saved its chances fora jury without any A frican-Americans ‘by “shuffling” or putting the jurors in a different order of review for selection, (RR Vol.3, P.1,3). After the shuffle, the first African-American set for selection was moved back to Seat number sixty-four, Thus, the State had successfully positioned itself so no A\tican- Americans would have asay’in Mr. Blanton's fae, and indeed, none did. Mr. lanton’s trial attorneys failed to timely object to this violation of Mr. Blanton's constitutional rights and his appellate attorney compounded the violation by filing to raise the issue as it applied to the shuffle on direct appeal B. Batson Summarized As set forth in Batson v, Kentucky, 106 S. Ct. 1719 (1986), “{tJhe Equal Protection (Clause of the United States Constitution limits a prosecutor's privilege to strike potential Jurors on ethnic backgrounds.” In other words, the State is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause ofthe United States Constitution from discriminating against prospective Jurors on the basis of their race or national origin, Id. An accused's challenge to the exclusion of a potential juror on the basis of racial diserimination is commonly referred to as a Batson challenge. 7c ‘The Prosecution Speaks ‘As set forth below, Batson requires a certain analysis for determining if Aftican- ‘American jurors have been unconstitutionally removed from the jury. Also as set forth below, this analysis usually requires the Prosecutor to clearly state why he or she is removing or “shuffling” the jurors. With respect to the shuffle which occurred in Mr. Blanton’s case, the Prosecuting Attomey made clear she had a sole reason forthe shuffle. (Wit Hearing Record p. 150). Specifically, she stated she only looked at a prospective Juror’s occupation to determine who she would like to “shuffle-up” and who she would like ‘to “shufMle-back.” (Writ Hearing Record p. 151, 156). More particularly, she said she ‘wanted to move military personnel to the front and the following to the back Defense Attomeys Social Workers Teachers (Writ Hearing Record p. 151, 156). The Prosecutor then expanded on her military ‘Personnel theory and stated that she wanted also to move police officers and accountants to {he front of the prospective panel. (Writ Hearing Record p. 156). D. ‘Earning a Living and the Jury Shuffle A review of the occupations of the first twenty jurors who were evaluated shows the Prosecutor's declaration is false and, therefore, the reason for the shuffle was 1 eliminate Aftican-Americans from the jury. The following chart shows the occupations of the first