Griffith v. Kentucky

1987-01-13

Headline: Applies Batson rule retroactively to all criminal cases pending on direct review, forcing courts to reexamine race-based jury strikes and increasing scrutiny of prosecutors’ peremptory challenges.

Holding: The Court held that Batson’s prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes applies retroactively to all state and federal criminal cases pending on direct review or not yet final when Batson was decided.

Real World Impact:

Applies Batson protections to defendants whose appeals were pending when Batson was decided.
Requires courts to reexamine jury selection where prosecutors struck jurors by race.
Reversals or new proceedings may follow in cases now remanded for further review.

Topics: race and jury selection, peremptory challenges, retroactivity in criminal appeals, criminal procedure

Summary

Background

Two criminal defendants — one in Kentucky and one in federal court in Oklahoma — challenged prosecutors’ use of peremptory strikes that removed Black jurors. Both appeals were pending when this Court decided Batson, which forbids excluding jurors based on race. Lower courts had relied on earlier precedent to reject the challenges, and the Court took these cases to decide whether Batson should apply to cases already on direct appeal.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a new rule banning race-based jury strikes must be applied to cases that were not yet final when the rule was announced. The majority explained that when the Court announces a new rule in a criminal case, fairness and the nature of judicial decisionmaking require that similar cases on direct review receive the same rule. The Court rejected a special exception for rules that constitute a “clear break” with the past and held that Batson applies retroactively to all state and federal cases pending on direct review or not yet final. The Court reversed the Kentucky and Tenth Circuit decisions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this holding.

Real world impact

The ruling means defendants with appeals pending when Batson was decided are entitled to its protections; trial and appellate courts must reexamine juror exclusions for race. The opinion did not resolve whether Batson applies to collateral habeas petitions, and some Justices dissented, arguing for preserving exceptions and not treating direct and collateral review differently.