Rivera v. Illinois
556 U.S. 148 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The erroneous denial of a state-provided peremptory challenge does not violate a defendant's federal due process rights, so long as the jury that is ultimately seated is impartial. Such an error is not a structural error requiring automatic reversal of a conviction under federal law.
Facts:
- Michael Rivera was on trial for first-degree murder in Cook County, Illinois.
- During jury selection, Rivera's counsel questioned prospective juror Deloris Gomez, who worked at a hospital that treated many gunshot victims.
- Gomez stated that her work experience would not affect her ability to be impartial.
- Rivera's counsel attempted to use a peremptory challenge to remove Gomez from the jury pool.
- The trial judge, concerned about potential discrimination in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, questioned the defense's motive for the strike.
- After hearing the defense's non-discriminatory reasons, the judge disallowed the peremptory challenge.
- As a result of the judge's ruling, Gomez was seated on the jury and later served as its foreperson.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Rivera was convicted of first-degree murder in a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
- Rivera appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, arguing the trial judge wrongly denied his peremptory challenge; that court affirmed his conviction.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois granted Rivera's appeal and remanded the case to the trial court, instructing the judge to articulate the basis for his Batson ruling.
- On remand, the trial judge stated he had found prima facie evidence of sex discrimination.
- The case returned to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which held that the trial judge had erred in denying the peremptory challenge because there was no prima facie case of discrimination.
- Despite finding error, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed Rivera's conviction, holding that the error was harmless and did not require automatic reversal because the seated jury was not biased.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among state courts on the issue.
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 erroneous denial of a defendant's state-law peremptory challenge require automatic reversal of a conviction under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even if all seated jurors are qualified and unbiased?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. The erroneous denial of a state-provided peremptory challenge is not a violation of the federal Constitution that requires automatic reversal, provided the jury that ultimately sits is impartial. Peremptory challenges are not a right guaranteed by the federal Constitution; they are a 'creature of statute' granted and governed by state law. Therefore, a 'mere error of state law' in administering them is not a denial of due process. The core constitutional guarantee is a fair trial before an impartial jury, which Rivera received since no seated juror, including Gomez, was challengeable for cause. The error is not 'structural' because it does not render the trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt, unlike errors such as the seating of a biased juror or unlawful racial discrimination in jury selection.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that peremptory challenges are a matter of state law and procedure, not federal constitutional right. It distinguishes the loss of a peremptory challenge from structural constitutional errors, such as racial discrimination under Batson, which require automatic reversal. The ruling reinforces the principle that federal due process is satisfied by an impartial jury, not by a flawless jury selection process. Consequently, this holding grants states significant discretion to apply their own harmless-error rules to mistakes made in administering peremptory challenges, limiting federal oversight to cases where the error results in an actual biased jury.
