This is an evaluation of the Batson v. Kentucky case. First, the case outline is given, followed by a discussion on Challenges for cause and peremptory challenges; and recommendation for impartial jury possible.
Case outline
The Batson v. Kentucky case involves a Black man in the United States of America who was convicted for second‐degree burglary and the receipt of stolen goods (Shipp, 1987). The judge conducted the voir dire examination of the potential jurors, excused some of them for cause, and then permitted prosecution and defense to exercise their peremptory challenge. The prosecutor’s exercise of the peremptory removed all four black jurors on the jury panel leaving only the white person. Batson moved for a discharge of the jury, asserting that the removal of all of the black jurors violated his sixth and fourteenth amendment rights to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community as well as his fourteenth amendment right to equal protection of the laws. The trial judge denied the motion and Batson was convicted on both counts. The judges in this case denied the prosecutors motion stating that the jury is entitled to use its peremptory challenges to handle any case as they observe it. Without expressly ruling on petitioner’s request for a hearing, the trial judge denied the motion, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendant (Shipp, 1987).
Failing to have his charges dismissed in lower courts, the defendant moved to the U.S. Supreme Court where Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court granted certiorari to decide whether petitioner was tried “in violation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the defendant an impartial jury and a jury composed of persons representing a fair cross section of community The Supreme Court ruled in Batson’s favor (Shipp, 1987). The court overruled Swain v. Alabama by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must meet to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. In Swain, the Court had recognized that a deliberate denial to ‘Negroes’ on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause but it was upon burden of proof to the defendant that the peremptory challenge was being practiced in the whole country. Court ruled that the defendant could make a prima facie case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record as per his case. The defendant should show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from jury panel, the defendant’s race. Also, that such fact and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude the venire men from the petit jury on account of their race. When a defendant makes such proof the burden is shifted to the state (Unit 5 Reading).
The following were held by the court: A State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposely excluded. A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors. The peremptory challenge occupies an important position in trial procedures (Unit 5 Reading).
Challenges for cause and peremptory challenges
Forst (2004) defines peremptory challenge is a challenge that both sides get to use for removing a juror without having cause to remove the juror. There is no limit to the amount of cause-based challenges during jury selection, and the idea behind the peremptory challenge is that both sides contribute to the final makeup of the jury. Challenge for cause is when an attorney wants a juror removed because of a specific reason (Forst, 2004). Peremptory challenge does not have to have a reason, whereas a challenge for cause needs a specific disqualifying reason. Potential bias is a common reason potential jurors are challenged for cause (Forst, 2004). This is how the judge excuses potential jurors. There are Peremptory Challenges and Challenge of Cause in both selecting jury members and selecting judges. In the case of the jury the Peremptory Challenge states the defense and prosecution has the right to reject potential jurors if they feel they are bias in any way (Forst, 2004). They are not required to provide a reason to the juror regarding why they are being let go. In the case of jurors with a challenge of cause it is the juror who is trying to convince the legal parties to release them from being a juror due to the fact that they may be unable to make a fair verdict (Forst, 2004).
Recommendation for impartial jury possible
Jury selection is a complex communication process (Fahringer, 1994). The attorney’s main goal is to obtain information from jurors in order to discover a potential juror for cause and peremptory strikes. According to Fahringer (1994) jurors’ body language is always indicative of their attitudes. Their non-verbal behavior reflects their boredom, or their annoyance with the lack of control they experience. The attorney questions the jurors on their background and views of law to get a clear view of how their past has been with the judiciary process and their relation to other judiciary colleagues. The gender of the jury has to be considered because different defendants may seem to be attracted to certain gender which might hinder justice from prevailing in case of gender bias, race has to be consider to rule out the idea of racial discrimination in case of various races in a state (Fahringer, 1994).
References:
Fahringer, H. (1994). “Mirror, mirror on the wall…” Body language, intuition, and the art of jury selection. Am. J. Trial Advoc, 17, 197.
Forst B., (2004). Errors of justice. Cambridge University Press
Unit 5 Reading: The trial process, chapter eleven.
Shipp, E.R. (1987). “Peremptory jury challenges face new tests”. New York Times.
