Allen v. Hardy

Background

A Black man convicted of murdering his girlfriend and her brother had seven Black and two Hispanic potential jurors removed by the prosecutor using nine peremptory strikes (strikes that excuse jurors without giving a reason). The trial judge denied a motion to discharge the jury, the defendant was convicted and given long concurrent sentences, and state and federal courts denied relief under the older Swain standard because he made no offer of proof at trial.

Reasoning

The Court faced the question whether the new Batson rule — which makes it easier to challenge race-based peremptory strikes — should be applied to cases already final when Batson was announced. The Court weighed three traditional factors: the new rule’s purpose, reliance on the old rule, and the administrative effects of making the rule retroactive. The majority said Batson overruled part of Swain, that lower courts and prosecutors had reasonably relied on Swain, and that retroactive relief would cause widespread disruption, lost evidence, and difficult post-conviction hearings. For those reasons the Court ruled Batson is not available on collateral review for convictions final before Batson.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the defendant’s conviction in place and means people whose convictions were final before Batson cannot obtain federal habeas relief based on Batson. It limits reopening old cases for race-based jury-exclusion claims and avoids large-scale retrials or hearings that the Court said would be disruptive.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented, criticizing the Court’s quick, summary handling and arguing Batson should apply retroactively because excluding minorities harms jury accuracy and the reliance interest was overstated. Justice Blackmun would have allowed full briefing and argument.