University:
University of California, Berkeley
Course:
Law 200.2 | Civil Procedure for LL.M.Students
Academic year:

2023
Views:

253

Pages:

1
Author:

Trevon Bernard

Batson v. Kentucky 476 US 79 (1986) Case Facts: ● Batson, a black man, was charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. ● During the jury selection for his trial, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges (removal of potential jurors without having to state a reason) to remove all four African Americans from the jury pool, resulting in an all white jury for Batson’s trial. ● Batson was convicted on both of the charges against him. Central Issues: Does the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race violate the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Answer and Rationale: Yes. ● In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the prosecutor’s use of his peremptory challenges to remove the black jurors from the jury violated both the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. ● Justice Powell wrote the opinion for the Court, relying on precedent from the previous cases, such as Swain v. Alabama (1965), to argue that the state is not permitted to use its peremptory challenges to automatically exclude potential members of the jury because of their race. ● Powell explained that discriminatory jury selection practices are harmful not only to the individual defendant, but to society at large by threatening the legitimacy of the justice system. ● The Court stated that jurors could only be excluded if there was a “neutral” reason for doing so that is not based on race. Concurring Opinions: ● Justice White wrote that precedent should have warned prosecutors that using peremptory challenges to exclude people based solely on race is unconstitutional, but he also noted that there is continued widespread use of peremptory challenges to discriminate. ● Justice Thurgood Marshall agreed with the decision, but argued that the Court should eliminate the use of peremptory challenges entirely. ● Justice Stevens asserted that the Equal Protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment was indeed the critical issue in the case. ● Justice O'Connor wrote to agree that the rule announced does not apply retroactively. Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that the Equal Protection Clause issue should not have been decided because the petitioner did not take action under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Chief Justice also noted that there should have been further discussion of the issue given the importance and tradition of peremptory challenges in the legal system. Principles of Law: Using peremptory challenges to remove a potential juror from the jury pool based on race violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Contextualization: In this case, the Court overturned the Swain v. Alabama (1965) decision, and thus limited the use of the peremptory challenge, which had previously given attorneys on both sides the right to strike potential jurors without providing a valid reason.