Purkett v. Elem

Background

A man convicted of second-degree robbery in Missouri objected when the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove two black men from the jury. The prosecutor said he struck juror 22 because of long, curly, unkempt hair and a mustache and goatee, and juror 24 because of a mustache, goatee, and prior robbery victimization involving a sawed-off shotgun. The trial judge overruled the objection without explanation, and state courts later affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed how to apply the three-step rule from Batson about race-based jury strikes. Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing, the prosecutor must give a race-neutral reason (step two), and the trial court then decides whether the reason is a pretext for discrimination (step three). The Court held that step two requires only a facially neutral explanation; it need not be persuasive or plausible. Because the prosecutor’s explanation about hair and facial hair was race neutral, the inquiry properly moved to step three, and federal habeas review must defer to the state court’s factual finding that there was no discriminatory intent.

Real world impact

The decision affects how courts evaluate claims that prosecutors used juror strikes for racial reasons. It allows prosecutors’ facially neutral explanations to satisfy the initial production requirement, emphasizes deference to trial-court credibility findings on habeas, and makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain relief on appeal or in federal habeas proceedings when the state record supports the trial court’s credibility assessment. The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, arguing the Court improperly relaxed Batson’s requirement and should have required more case-related, specific explanations; they warned that accepting silly or implausible reasons undermines protection against race-based jury exclusion.