Batson v. Kentucky
Encyclopedia
Batson v. Kentucky, , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court
ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge
—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment
.
man convicted of burglary
and receipt of stolen goods in a Louisville, Kentucky
circuit court
by a jury
composed entirely of white jurors. The key part of the appeal was based on the jury selection, or voir dire
phase of the trial. During this phase potential jurors are examined by the Court, the prosecution, and the defense, to determine their competence, willingness, and suitability to hear, deliberate and decide a case put to them to render a verdict. In this particular case, the judge dismissed several potential jurors for various causes. During voir dire, as is the typical court custom, both the prosecution and the defense have a limited number of peremptory challenges, (i.e., accepted on their face, as the right of the party) which are used to excuse any juror for any reason which the particular side believes will help their case.
In the case at issue, the defense peremptorily challenged nine potential jurors and the prosecutor, Joe Gutmann, peremptorily challenged six, including all four black persons, and a jury composed only of white persons was selected. The defense counsel moved to discharge the whole jury on the ground that the prosecutor's removal of the black veniremen violated petitioner's rights under the Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community, and under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws. Without expressly ruling on petitioner's request for a hearing, the trial judge denied the motion, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendant.
The defendant appealed the conviction to the Kentucky Supreme Court
, who affirmed the conviction. That court cited Swain v. Alabama
, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) and held that a defendant alleging lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the panel of prospective jurors. That is, the defendant had to show that not just in his case, but as a process, juries in his community were being constructed so as to not represent a cross section of that community. Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari
was granted 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 the community."
the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The case overruled Swain v. Alabama by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must show in order to make a prima facie case (which does not require proof or reasoning) of purposeful discrimination.
In Swain, the court recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause". But they ruled that the defendant had the burden of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. In Batson the court ruled that the defendant could make a prima facie case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record only in his own case. The Court explained further:
The decision also held the following:
The decision of the court was not retroactive. This meant that people convicted prior to the Batson decision by juries whose racial composition was influenced by peremptory challenges not consistent with this opinion could not appeal on the grounds outlined in the opinion.
Warren Burger argued that the court's decision in Batson effectively did away with the peremptory challenge, "a procedure which has been part of the common law
for many centuries and part of our jury system for nearly 200 years". The peremptory challenge, he believed, was largely ended and replaced with something very similar to challenge for cause:
.
Batsons authority has recently been reinforced in a pair of 2005 decisions, Miller-El v. Dretke
, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) and Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005).
The idea of Batson challenges also extends to sex-based peremptory challenges. See J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.
, .
An attempt to extend Batson to cover sexual orientation failed in U.S. v. Blaylock. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
doubted that Batson covered sexual orientation but that even if it did the prosecution in this case had "offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for striking the panel member".
Although the issue has yet to come before a federal court, in state courts, Batson has been applied to discriminatory use of peremptory strikes against judges. For example, in Superior Court v. Williams, 8 Cal. App. 4th 688, defense counsel objected to the prosecution’s motion to disqualify an African-American judge, suspecting that the motion was racially motivated. The Court noted that Batson’s use of Equal Protection to combat racially discriminatory strikes against jurors was well established, and that subsequent decisions had extended these protections in other contexts. The Court held that “these principles are equally applicable to race-based challenges to judges.”
Joe Gutmann, the prosecutor in Batson's 1982 trial, has said that the Supreme Court's decision was "a good one" because it prevents lawyers from discriminating in jury selection. Gutmann now teaches government and history at inner-city Louisville Central High School. He has said he removed the black members of the venire not because of their race but because they were young and might sympathize with Batson.
Batson is now a construction worker in Louisville, Kentucky and says of the media attention regarding the famous case that bears his name, "It's so old, they ought to let it go."
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge
Peremptory challenge
Peremptory challenge usually refers to a right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason...
—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
of the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
.
Background
The petitioner, James Kirkland Batson, was an African AmericanAfrican American
African Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa and are the direct descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States...
man convicted of burglary
Burglary
Burglary is a crime, the essence of which is illicit entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offense. Usually that offense will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary...
and receipt of stolen goods in a Louisville, Kentucky
Louisville, Kentucky
Louisville is the largest city in the U.S. state of Kentucky, and the county seat of Jefferson County. Since 2003, the city's borders have been coterminous with those of the county because of a city-county merger. The city's population at the 2010 census was 741,096...
circuit court
Kentucky Circuit Courts
The Kentucky Circuit Courts are the state courts of general jurisdiction in the U.S. state of Kentucky.The Circuit Courts are trial courts with original jurisdiction in cases involving capital offenses, felonies, land disputes, contested probates of wills, and civil lawsuits in disputes with an...
by a jury
Jury
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,...
composed entirely of white jurors. The key part of the appeal was based on the jury selection, or voir dire
Voir dire
Voir dire is a phrase in law which comes from the Anglo-Norman language. In origin it refers to an oath to tell the truth , i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both....
phase of the trial. During this phase potential jurors are examined by the Court, the prosecution, and the defense, to determine their competence, willingness, and suitability to hear, deliberate and decide a case put to them to render a verdict. In this particular case, the judge dismissed several potential jurors for various causes. During voir dire, as is the typical court custom, both the prosecution and the defense have a limited number of peremptory challenges, (i.e., accepted on their face, as the right of the party) which are used to excuse any juror for any reason which the particular side believes will help their case.
In the case at issue, the defense peremptorily challenged nine potential jurors and the prosecutor, Joe Gutmann, peremptorily challenged six, including all four black persons, and a jury composed only of white persons was selected. The defense counsel moved to discharge the whole jury on the ground that the prosecutor's removal of the black veniremen violated petitioner's rights under the Sixth
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
and Fourteenth Amendments to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community, and under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws. Without expressly ruling on petitioner's request for a hearing, the trial judge denied the motion, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendant.
The defendant appealed the conviction to the Kentucky Supreme Court
Kentucky Supreme Court
The Kentucky Supreme Court was created by a 1975 constitutional amendment and is the state supreme court of the commonwealth of Kentucky. Prior to that the Kentucky Court of Appeals was the only appellate court in Kentucky...
, who affirmed the conviction. That court cited Swain v. Alabama
Swain v. Alabama
Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the legality of a struck jury....
, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) and held that a defendant alleging lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the panel of prospective jurors. That is, the defendant had to show that not just in his case, but as a process, juries in his community were being constructed so as to not represent a cross section of that community. Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
was granted 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 the community."
The court's decision
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He developed a reputation as a judicial moderate, and was known as a master of compromise and consensus-building. He was also widely well regarded by contemporaries due to his personal good manners and...
the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The case overruled Swain v. Alabama by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must show in order to make a prima facie case (which does not require proof or reasoning) of purposeful discrimination.
In Swain, the court recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause". But they ruled that the defendant had the burden of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. In Batson the court ruled that the defendant could make a prima facie case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record only in his own case. The Court explained further:
The defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire [jury pool] members of the defendant's race. The defendant may also rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate. Finally, the defendant must show that such facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.
The decision also held the following:
- 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; and
- the peremptory challenge occupies an important position in trial procedures.
The decision of the court was not retroactive. This meant that people convicted prior to the Batson decision by juries whose racial composition was influenced by peremptory challenges not consistent with this opinion could not appeal on the grounds outlined in the opinion.
Burger's dissenting opinion
In his dissenting opinion, Chief JusticeChief Justice of the United States
The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the United States federal court system and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Justice is one of nine Supreme Court justices; the other eight are the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States...
Warren Burger argued that the court's decision in Batson effectively did away with the peremptory challenge, "a procedure which has been part of the common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
for many centuries and part of our jury system for nearly 200 years". The peremptory challenge, he believed, was largely ended and replaced with something very similar to challenge for cause:
The effect of the Court's decision, however, will be to force the defendant to come forward and 'articulate a neutral explanation' for his peremptory challenge, a burden he probably cannot meet. This example demonstrates that today's holding will produce juries that the parties do not believe are truly impartial. This will surely do more than 'disconcert' litigants; it will diminish confidence in the jury system.
Batson in modern law
Since it has become such an oft-used tactic, the term "Batson challenge" has come to mean the act of claiming, based on this decision, that a trial should be invalidated on the basis of peremptory challenges having excluded a cognizable group from the jury, such as excluding on the basis of race alone. The Batson decision was in reference to jury selection in criminal trials, but the court later extended the same rule to civil trials in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete CompanyEdmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky, a criminal...
.
Batsons authority has recently been reinforced in a pair of 2005 decisions, Miller-El v. Dretke
Miller-El v. Dretke
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the constitutional limitations on the use by prosecutors of peremptory challenges and of the Texas procedure appropriately termed the "jury shuffle."-Factual background:Thomas Miller-El was...
, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) and Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005).
The idea of Batson challenges also extends to sex-based peremptory challenges. See J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.
J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional. J.E.B. extended the court's existing precedent in Batson v...
, .
An attempt to extend Batson to cover sexual orientation failed in U.S. v. Blaylock. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Arkansas* Western District of Arkansas...
doubted that Batson covered sexual orientation but that even if it did the prosecution in this case had "offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for striking the panel member".
Although the issue has yet to come before a federal court, in state courts, Batson has been applied to discriminatory use of peremptory strikes against judges. For example, in Superior Court v. Williams, 8 Cal. App. 4th 688, defense counsel objected to the prosecution’s motion to disqualify an African-American judge, suspecting that the motion was racially motivated. The Court noted that Batson’s use of Equal Protection to combat racially discriminatory strikes against jurors was well established, and that subsequent decisions had extended these protections in other contexts. The Court held that “these principles are equally applicable to race-based challenges to judges.”
Subsequent history of the case
When the Supreme Court reversed his conviction, James Kirkland Batson was serving a 20 year sentence from the case. Rather than risk a retrial, Batson pled guilty to burglary and received a five year prison sentence. After that sentence, Batson continued to get in trouble with the law, being convicted of several offenses including burglary, theft, receiving stolen property and being a persistent felony offender. He was released from prison again in January 2003 and will remain on parole through 2026.Joe Gutmann, the prosecutor in Batson's 1982 trial, has said that the Supreme Court's decision was "a good one" because it prevents lawyers from discriminating in jury selection. Gutmann now teaches government and history at inner-city Louisville Central High School. He has said he removed the black members of the venire not because of their race but because they were young and might sympathize with Batson.
Batson is now a construction worker in Louisville, Kentucky and says of the media attention regarding the famous case that bears his name, "It's so old, they ought to let it go."