Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986)
Rule of Law:
The use of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor to exclude potential jurors solely on account of their race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A defendant may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination based solely on the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges in the defendant's own case.
Facts:
- Petitioner James Kirkland Batson, a black man, was indicted in Kentucky on criminal charges.
- During jury selection for his trial, the venire included four black individuals.
- The prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike all four black persons from the venire.
- Consequently, a petit jury composed exclusively of white persons was selected to preside over Batson's trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Batson was convicted on two counts in the Jefferson Circuit Court, a Kentucky state trial court.
- During jury selection at trial, Batson's defense counsel moved to discharge the jury on the grounds that the prosecutor's removal of all black venire members violated his constitutional rights.
- The trial judge denied the motion and the trial proceeded with an all-white jury.
- Batson (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the precedent of Swain v. Alabama foreclosed Batson's claim.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Batson's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike all potential jurors of the defendant's race from the petit jury violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors based on their race violates the Equal Protection Clause. This decision overrules the evidentiary standard set in Swain v. Alabama, which required showing a pattern of discrimination across multiple cases. The Court establishes a new framework: a defendant can make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing (1) that he is a member of a cognizable racial group and the prosecutor has removed members of his race from the jury, (2) that peremptory challenges permit those who are inclined to discriminate to do so, and (3) that these facts and other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used the challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race. Once the defendant makes this prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike, which must be more than an assumption of bias based on shared race.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes. Justice White agreed that Swain should be overruled because the practice of prosecutors using peremptories to remove black jurors in cases with black defendants had become widespread. He emphasized that this ruling creates an opportunity for inquiry when such a pattern occurs in a single case but does not make every strike of a black juror unconstitutional. He also argued that this new rule should not be applied retroactively.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes. While concurring with the majority's historic step, Justice Marshall argued that the only way to truly eradicate racial discrimination from jury selection is to eliminate peremptory challenges entirely. He expressed concern that prosecutors can easily invent facially neutral reasons to justify their strikes and that trial courts are ill-equipped to assess the true motive, which may be rooted in conscious or unconscious racism.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. This concurrence addresses the dissent's procedural objection that the Court decided the case on Equal Protection grounds not explicitly raised by the petitioner. Justice Stevens argued that the issue was properly before the Court because the respondent (the State of Kentucky) explicitly based its defense on the Equal Protection analysis of Swain v. Alabama, making it a central issue in the case.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes. Justice O'Connor joined the Court's opinion and judgment but wrote separately to agree with the view that the decision should not be applied retroactively.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Chief Justice dissented on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, he argued the Court should not have reached the Equal Protection issue because the petitioner disclaimed it. Substantively, he defended the peremptory challenge as a centuries-old, vital tool for securing an impartial jury. He contended that requiring a lawyer to explain a peremptory challenge fundamentally alters its nature, collapsing it into a challenge for cause, and predicted the new rule would create serious administrative difficulties.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority misread and wrongly overruled the core substantive holding of Swain. He contended that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated when a prosecutor uses challenges to strike jurors of a particular race in a case involving a defendant of the same race, as long as this practice is applied even-handedly to all races. He argued this case-specific use of peremptory challenges is based on a proxy for potential bias and does not constitute the kind of systemic, invidious discrimination the Equal Protection Clause forbids.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered jury selection procedures in the United States by overruling the 'crippling burden of proof' established in Swain v. Alabama. The creation of the 'Batson challenge' provided defendants with a procedural mechanism to contest the discriminatory use of peremptory strikes in their own case, shifting the evidentiary burden to the prosecutor to offer a race-neutral justification. This holding significantly extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause into the jury box, seeking to eradicate racial discrimination from the trial process itself. While intended to promote jury diversity and public confidence in the justice system, the decision has led to extensive subsequent litigation over what constitutes a sufficient 'race-neutral' explanation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"