Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | Trial

Court looks again at race and peremptory challenges.

Article Excerpt
In two cases decided at the end of the term, the Supreme Court breathed new life into the Batson v. Kentucky (1) rule that peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude prospective jurors based on race. However, the Court's very process of reaching its conclusion in one of the cases illustrates the complexity, of Batson challenges and gives impetus to the argument that the only way to solve the problem of race-based peremptory challenges is to abolish peremptory challenges altogether.

The first case, Johnson v. California, (2) was straightforward. After three African-American jurors were struck from the venire by the prosecutor using peremptory challenges, the petitioner, a black man accused of murdering a white child, was left with an all-white jury. When defense counsel objected, the trial judge--without asking the prosecutor to explain the strikes--ruled that the petitioner had failed to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. Under applicable state precedent, the defendant had to show a "strong likelihood that the exercise of the peremptory challenges were based upon a group rather than an individual basis." (3)

Batson established a three-step test for determining whether a peremptory challenge has been used in a racially discriminatory fashion:

First a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race. Second, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question. Third, in light of the parties' submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination. (4)

The court of appeals reversed Johnson's conviction, but the California Supreme Court reinstated it, holding that the test applied by the trial court was correct. (5) The state high court said the defendant had to make the "strong likelihood" showing before it could be said that he had made the prima facie case required by the first prong of Batson.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In an 8-1 opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that, while the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proof, he or she is not required to meet this burden to make a prima facie case...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!