Batson v. Kentucky

Rule

The 14th Amendment states that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Issue

Whether use of peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors merely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Dissenting opinion

Batson only raised the question about the constitutional provisions for composing an impartial jury representing a fair cross-section of the community (based on 6th Amendment); EP was not properly raised and thus should not have been addressed by the Court Peremptory challenges are fundamental to the foundation of the jury system and should not be set aside so easily

Facts

Batson, a Black male, was charged with 2nd degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods Trial court judge allowed prosecutor to strike all 4 Black potential jurors which resulted in an all-White jury Batson moved to discharge the jury arguing that the removal of all the potential Black jurors violated his rights under the 6th and 14th Amendments (cross-section of the community and EP) Trial judge ruled that parties can use peremptory challenge to strike whomever they want to and denied Batson's motion Batson was found guilty on both counts and subsequently appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court which affirmed According to Kentucky Supreme Court, citing Swain v. Alabama, a defendant alleging a lack of fair cross-section must demonstrate "systematic exclusion" of jurors from the venire

Conclusion

Because the trial court rejected the motion without requiring an explanation from the prosecutor, this case is remanded for further proceedings If the prosecutor cannot discharge his burden, Batson's conviction must be reversed

Procedural history

During trial, prosecutor used peremptory challenge to strike all potential Black jurors and the defendant (Black male) was found guilty on charges of 2nd degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari

Analysis

The central concern of the 14th Amendment was to eradicate governmental discrimination on the basis of race EP clause guarantees that the state will not exclude members of the defendant's race from the jury on account of race Citing Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., a person's race "is unrelated to his fitness as a juror" and EP clause prevents prosecutor from making the assumption that Black jurors are unable to be impartial (EP limits peremptory challenges) Procedures that intentionally exclude potential jurors who are the same race of the defendant undermines public confidence in the fairness of the justice system Swain has been interpreted as placing the burden on the defendant to prove repeated striking of Blacks over a number of cases to establish an EP violation but this placed a "crippling burden" on defendants and allowed prosecutors to operate immune from constitutional scrutiny Black defendant may make prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by the totality of facts giving rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose and then the burden shifts to State to adequately explain the racial exclusion This new process enforces the mandate of EP which facilitates justice in the proceedings