Batson v. Kentucky
Headline: Court bans prosecutors from using peremptory strikes to remove jurors solely because of race, overturns part of Swain, and forces judges to require neutral explanations when discrimination is shown, affecting jury selection nationwide.
Holding: The Court held that prosecutors may not use peremptory strikes to exclude jurors solely because of race and adopted a test requiring a defendant’s initial showing, after which the State must give a neutral explanation.
- Stops prosecutors from striking jurors solely for race without explanation.
- Requires judges to demand race-neutral reasons when discrimination is shown.
- Likely increases voir dire questioning and records about juror composition.
Summary
Background
A black man in Kentucky was tried for burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During jury selection the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove all four black venire members, producing an all-white jury. Defense counsel objected and asked for a hearing, but the trial judge refused to require an explanation. Kentucky’s highest court affirmed under the old rule from Swain v. Alabama, and the case reached the Supreme Court for review.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether striking potential jurors solely because of their race violates equal protection. The Justices said yes. The Court set a simple three-step approach: the accused may make an initial showing (called a “prima facie” or initial showing) that the prosecutor struck jurors because of race by proving he belongs to a racial group, that the prosecutor used strikes to remove members of that group from the panel, and that the surrounding facts raise an inference of race-based exclusion. If that showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to give a race-neutral explanation tied to the case. The prosecutor cannot justify strikes simply by saying he had an “intuition” or assumed jurors would favor a defendant because they share a race. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sent the case back for the trial court to apply this rule.
Real world impact
The ruling limits prosecutors’ use of peremptory strikes and requires judges to police race-based exclusions in individual trials. Trials will now include more hearings or explanations when all or many minority jurors are struck. The decision overturned part of Swain and remade federal constitutional practice for jury selection.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices agreed but offered different views: one justice urged banning peremptories entirely; others warned the Court reached an equal protection issue not pressed below and argued against retroactive effect.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?