McCray v. New York
Headline: Court denied review of cases challenging prosecutors’ use of peremptory strikes to remove all Black potential jurors, leaving states and lower courts to develop rules about racial exclusion from juries.
Holding: The Court denied review, leaving lower-court decisions intact and allowing state and lower federal courts to further develop rules on using peremptory strikes to exclude jurors by race.
- Leaves convictions intact and lets lower courts decide jury-exclusion rules.
- Permits states to develop differing standards for racial juror-exclusion claims.
- Means prosecutors may continue peremptory strikes unless state courts limit them.
Summary
Background
Three criminal cases raised the same concern: prosecutors used peremptory strikes — the ability to remove jurors without stating a reason — to exclude Black prospective jurors. In one New York case, after a hung jury an all-white jury convicted a Black defendant after the prosecutor struck seven Black and one Hispanic veniremen; the defendant’s requests for a mistrial or a hearing about the prosecutor’s motives were denied and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed by 4–3. In the other two cases, prosecutors excluded all Black venire members (14 in one case; after some removals for cause, all remaining Black veniremen in the other). Trial lawyers objected, but state appellate courts relied on the Court’s earlier Swain decision and declined relief.
Reasoning
Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Blackmun and Powell, voted to deny review, explaining that there is not yet a conflict in the federal courts and that state courts can further study the issue. The opinion notes widespread criticism of Swain v. Alabama because it requires proof of long-term, systematic exclusion before a defendant can obtain relief. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the denial and would have granted review to reexamine Swain and whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a jury drawn from a fair cross section forbids removing jurors solely because of race. The dissent highlighted state approaches, such as California’s Wheeler procedure, which can require prosecutors to give nonracial reasons when racial exclusion is reasonably inferred.
Real world impact
Because the Court refused to take the cases, the lower-court rulings stand and no national rule was announced. States and lower federal courts remain free to adopt differing rules about when peremptory strikes used to remove racial groups are unconstitutional. The issue could return to the Court later for a final decision.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Marshall’s dissent emphasized the importance of reexamining Swain and protecting the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial, representative jury; he would have granted review, including in a capital case at issue.
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?