Georgia v. McCollum
505 U.S. 42 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a criminal defendant from using peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors on the basis of their race.
Facts:
- A grand jury in Dougherty County, Georgia, indicted respondents, who are white, for the aggravated assault and simple battery of Jerry and Myra Collins, who are African-American.
- Following the incident, a leaflet was distributed in the local African-American community urging residents not to patronize the respondents' business.
- The State alleged that the victims' race was a factor in the assault.
- The prosecution stated it had information that the respondents' counsel intended to use peremptory challenges to remove all potential African-American jurors from the jury pool.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Georgia charged respondents in the Dougherty County Superior Court, a state trial court.
- Before trial, the State filed a motion to prohibit the respondents from exercising their peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner.
- The trial court denied the State's motion.
- The State of Georgia, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia, the state's highest court, affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that state and federal law did not prohibit criminal defendants from exercising peremptory strikes in a discriminatory manner.
- The State of Georgia, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a criminal defendant from using peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. This is because a defendant's exercise of peremptory challenges constitutes state action that inflicts harms condemned by the Court's prior decisions. First, racial discrimination in jury selection harms the excluded juror's dignity and the community's confidence in the judicial system, regardless of whether the State or the defendant is the discriminating party. Second, a defendant's use of peremptory challenges constitutes state action because the right is granted by state law and the defendant is using a state-provided forum and mechanism to select a quintessential governmental body—the jury. Third, the State has standing to raise the equal protection claim on behalf of the excluded jurors. Finally, a defendant's constitutional rights are not violated by this prohibition, as peremptory challenges are not a constitutionally protected right, and the prohibition does not impair the rights to effective counsel or an impartial jury.
Concurring - Chief Justice Rehnquist
While continuing to believe that Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. was wrongly decided, its holding that the use of peremptory challenges in a civil case constitutes state action logically controls the disposition of this case. Therefore, so long as Edmonson remains the law, its reasoning must be applied here to find state action in a criminal defendant's use of peremptory challenges.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes. While disagreeing with the Court's jurisprudence on peremptory challenges, the precedent set in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. governs this case and compels the conclusion that a defendant's use of peremptories is state action. However, this decision moves further away from the original principle of protecting defendants, as established in Strauder v. West Virginia. By limiting the defendant's ability to shape the jury, this ruling may ultimately harm Black defendants who could use peremptory challenges to ensure a fairer, more representative jury and avoid the effects of racial bias.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
No. A criminal defendant's exercise of a peremptory challenge is not state action and therefore does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The relationship between a criminal defendant and the State is fundamentally adversarial, which distinguishes this case from the civil context of Edmonson. Under Polk County v. Dodson, a defense lawyer performing a traditional trial function is not a state actor. The majority's conclusion illogically transforms a defendant into an agent of the state at the moment of exercising a challenge, despite being the state's adversary throughout the rest of the proceeding. This decision may also have the negative pragmatic effect of preventing minority defendants from striking potentially biased majority-race jurors.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The majority's judgment is the 'terminally absurd' but logical consequence of the wrongly decided Edmonson case. The proposition that a criminal defendant, while actively defending himself against the state, is simultaneously acting on behalf of the state is inherently illogical and contrived. This decision uses the Constitution to destroy the long-standing right of criminal defendants to exercise peremptory challenges as they see fit to secure a jury they believe will be fair.
Analysis:
This decision completes the constitutional regulation of peremptory challenges initiated in Batson v. Kentucky, extending the prohibition on race-based strikes to all parties in all trial settings, criminal and civil. By classifying the criminal defendant as a 'state actor' for the limited purpose of jury selection, the Court prioritized the equal protection rights of jurors and public confidence in the judicial system over the defendant's traditional, unfettered discretion in exercising challenges. The ruling reinforces that the harm from racial discrimination in court is a public injury, not just a private one, but it also significantly alters the adversarial dynamic by subjecting a key defense tactic to constitutional scrutiny and the oversight of the trial judge.
