Dukes v. Waitkevitch

Background

A Black man was charged and convicted of raping a white woman in Boston and sought to question prospective jurors about racial prejudice before trial. The Court of Appeals held he was not entitled to that questioning, and the Supreme Court declined to review that conclusion, effectively leaving the conviction and the appeals court’s ruling in place.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the defendant could require questions of potential jurors about their racial attitudes given an interracial rape charge in a racially troubled city. The Supreme Court refused to take the case and therefore did not decide the legal question. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the denial, arguing that the appeals court’s reading of the Court’s prior decision in Ristaino v. Ross was incorrect and that the historical and social context of interracial-rape allegations made voir dire about race essential to a fair trial.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined review, the appeals court’s limitation on juror questioning stands for this case and similar cases, restricting a tool defendants might use to guard against racial prejudice in the jury. Justice Marshall warned that leaving the issue unaddressed weakens longstanding protections meant to ensure fair, impartial juries. This denial is not a merits ruling and could be revisited in a future case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall’s dissent emphasized the special risk of racial prejudice in interracial-rape accusations, cited earlier cases and social-science commentary, and argued the defendant was entitled to voir dire about race to protect fairness.