{"id":9956,"date":"2017-11-29T04:07:05","date_gmt":"2017-11-29T04:07:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=9956"},"modified":"2017-11-29T05:23:31","modified_gmt":"2017-11-29T05:23:31","slug":"batson-v-kentucky-1986","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=9956","title":{"rendered":"Batson v. Kentucky (1986) – an opposing party cannot use a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Note:<\/span> This case is where the Batson<\/em> challenge (and<\/em><\/span> Batson<\/em> rule)<\/a> originated.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Batson<\/em> Challenge (Batson<\/em> Rule)<\/span><\/a> – object that an opposing party has used a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0A circuit court in Jefferson County, Kentucky, refused to discharge a jury where the prosecutor had used peremptory challenges to strike African American jurors in the trial of a black defendant. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Question:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Are peremptory challenges exercised to exclude individuals on the basis of race subject to equal protection review?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Decision:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Yes.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Reasons:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

J. Powell<\/em> (7-2). Powell decided that this case called for a review of Swain v. Alabama<\/em>, 380 US. 202 (1965).\u00a0 In Strauder v. West Virginia<\/em>, 100 US. 303 (1880), the Court had rejected schemes that excluded racial\u00a0<\/span>minorities from the jury pool.\u00a0 The harm of such exclusion extends into the entire community by undermining \u201cpublic confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.<\/span>\u201d\u00a0 Although Swain<\/em> permitted blacks to show purposeful discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges, it placed “a crippling burden of proof<\/span>\u201d on the defendants.\u00a0 Powell altered this burden.\u00a0 In cases where a defendant can show he or she is \u201ca member of a racial group capable or being singled out for differential treatment,<\/span>\u201d the defendant may then require the state \u201cto come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.<\/span>\u201d \u201cThe core guarantee of equal protection, ensuring citizens that their State will not discriminate on account of race, would be meaningless were we to approve the exclusion of jurors on the basis of such assumptions, which arise solely from the jurors\u2019 race.<\/span>\u201d This decision does not eviscerate peremptory challenges but simply requires \u201ctrial courts to be sensitive to the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0J. White<\/em>, concurring, agreed that Swain v. Alabama<\/em> should be overturned to the extent that it required a defendant to offer proof of discrimination that extended beyond the defendant\u2019s own case.\u00a0 White did not believe this decision should be applied retroactively.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0J. Marshall<\/em>, concurring, called for the complete elimination of peremptory challenges, which he believed have the \u201cinherent potential . . . to distort the jury process by permitting the exclusion of jurors on racial grounds.<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0J. Stevens<\/em>, concurring, defended himself against charges of inconsistency raised in the dissenting opinions.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0C.J. Burger<\/em>, dissenting, accused the Court of ignoring \u201csettled principles.<\/span>\u201d\u00a0 He noted that the defendant had argued before the Court on the basis of the Sixth Amendment rather than the equal protection clause; he did not think the Court should decide the latter issue without full argument.\u00a0 Burger further distinguished the exclusion of African Americans from the jury pool and their exclusion from individual juries through peremptory challenges.\u00a0 By definition, peremptory challenges do not require counsel to supply reasons.\u00a0 The majority decision is likely to inject racial considerations back into the jury selection process.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0J. Rehnquist<\/em>, dissenting, argued that the Court was rejecting long-established practices and precedents on the basis of too little argument.\u00a0 He believed it was often necessary to use \u201cgroup affiliations, such as age, race, or occupation, as a \u2018proxy\u2019 for potential juror partiality, based on the assumption or belief that members of one group are more likely to favor defendants who belong to the\u00a0<\/span><\/span>same group.<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Citation:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Batson v. Kentucky<\/em>, 476 US. 79; 106 S. Ct. 1712; 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong> All material throughout this website is pertinent to people everywhere, and is being utilized in accordance with Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]: Rowman & Littlefield\u2019s\u00a0Essential Supreme Court Decisions\u00a016th Edition\u00a0<\/em><\/a>by\u00a0John R. Vile<\/a>.\u00a0 p 114.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

******************************************<\/span><\/p>\n

Back to Batson Challenge<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Do You Want a Trial by Jury? Things to consider…<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Supreme Court Rulings<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

About the U.S. Supreme Court<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

All Federal Courts<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Intro to Law<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Like this website?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Please Support Our Fundraiser<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

or donate via\u00a0PayPal<\/a>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n