Holland v. Illinois
493 U.S. 474, 107 L. Ed. 2d 905, 1990 U.S. LEXIS 569 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement applies to the selection of the jury venire but does not extend to the use of peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors from the petit jury.
Facts:
- Daniel Holland, a white man, was charged with several felonies in Cook County, Illinois.
- A venire of 30 potential jurors was assembled for his trial.
- Of the 30 potential jurors in the venire, two were black.
- During jury selection, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike both black potential jurors.
- As a result, the petit jury that tried and convicted Holland was composed entirely of non-black jurors.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Holland was charged with multiple felonies in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, a state trial court.
- At trial, the judge overruled Holland's objection to the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike two black venire members.
- Holland was convicted by the jury.
- On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the convictions on unrelated grounds.
- The State of Illinois, as appellant, appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, the state's highest court, with Holland as appellee.
- The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the convictions, rejecting Holland's Sixth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause challenges to the jury selection.
- Holland, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court, limited to the Sixth Amendment question.
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 exclude all black potential jurors from a white defendant's petit jury violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No, a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude members of a cognizable group from the petit jury does not violate the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement. The Sixth Amendment guarantees an impartial jury, not a representative one. The fair-cross-section requirement applies only to the venire, ensuring that the initial pool of potential jurors is drawn from a representative sample of the community. This process ensures that both the prosecution and defense begin on an equal footing. However, the long-standing tradition of peremptory challenges, which allows both sides to eliminate jurors they believe may be partial, is a core component of securing an impartial jury and is not restricted by the fair-cross-section principle. While the Equal Protection Clause, as interpreted in Batson v. Kentucky, forbids race-based peremptory challenges, the Sixth Amendment imposes no such limitation on the composition of the petit jury itself.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No, for the reasons stated in the majority opinion, the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section claim must be rejected. However, the exclusion of a juror on the basis of race is a clear violation of the juror's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. A defendant should have standing to raise such a claim regardless of their own race, as racial exclusion undermines public confidence in the justice system and violates the rights of the excluded juror. While this case does not present the Equal Protection claim, it is important to note that today's Sixth Amendment holding does not foreclose such a challenge in a future case.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, a prosecutor's racially motivated exclusion of black jurors from a petit jury violates the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement. The majority misconstrues the purpose of this requirement, which serves not only to ensure impartiality but also to guard against arbitrary power, preserve public confidence, and implement civic responsibility. Excluding a distinctive group from the petit jury through peremptory challenges undermines these purposes just as much as excluding them from the venire. The Court's distinction between the venire and the petit jury is artificial and ignores the clear import of precedents like Taylor and Duren. The fear that this holding would destroy the peremptory challenge system is unfounded, as the Court already placed similar limits on race-based strikes under the Fourteenth Amendment in Batson.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the exclusion of black jurors solely on account of their race violates the Sixth Amendment. A jury that is the product of such a racially discriminatory selection process cannot possibly be an 'impartial jury' within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. The state's assumption that a black juror is partial simply because he is black is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court should have reached the petitioner's Equal Protection claim, as Batson makes clear that such discrimination harms not only the defendant but also the excluded jurors and the community's confidence in the justice system. A defendant of any race should have standing to challenge such discriminatory practices.
Analysis:
This decision sharply distinguishes the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section analysis from the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection analysis in jury selection. It establishes a bright-line rule that the fair-cross-section guarantee is a check on the composition of the venire (the jury pool) only, not on the final petit jury. This holding effectively channels all challenges to race-based peremptory strikes into the framework of Batson v. Kentucky and the Equal Protection Clause. While closing the door on Sixth Amendment claims regarding the petit jury, the separate opinions by Justices Kennedy, Marshall, and Stevens strongly signaled that a majority of the Court was prepared to expand Batson's standing requirements to allow defendants to challenge the exclusion of jurors of a different race, a question the Court would resolve a year later in Powers v. Ohio.
Unlock the full brief for Holland v. Illinois