Batson V Kentucky (1986)
During the criminal trial in a Kentucky state court, a black man named James Kirkland Batson who was on trial, was charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike down all four black persons from the jury pool resulting in a jury composed of all whites. James wanted to challenge the removal of the jurors since he believed that they violated the Sixth Amendment. Which then gives him the right to an impartial jury and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Batson was convicted on account of both charges placed against him. On appeal, the Court of Kentucky affirmed the convictions and then the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. With the ruling of this case there is still the underlining question that remains, Did Batson’s challenge to remove a potential juror from the jury pool was in fact based on race violations the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? Well, the answer to that question is Yes, and the reason for it being yes, is based on a 7-2 decision, the Court held that while a defendant is not entitled to have a jury completely or partially composed of people of his own race, the state is not permitted to use its peremptory challenges to automatically exclude potential members of the jury due to their race. In addition, the Equal Protection Clause ensures the defendant that the state will not exclude members of the jury venire that are of his own race on account of race or of the false assumption that members of his race or group are not qualified to serve as jurors. Therefore, Justice Lewis Powell, so profoundly states that, “The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice." He is completely correct, in a criminal case, a defendant can make a Equal Protection claim against the discriminatory use of the peremptory challenges at a defendant’s trial. The minute a defendant makes it evident that race was in fact involved when deciding if potential jurors are kept or removed. The burden is then carried on the shoulders of the state and forced to come forward with a substantial race-neutral explanation for the exclusion. In the concurrence many justices of the Supreme Court especially Justice White claimed that the Court’s prior precedent should have warned prosecutors that using peremptory challenges to exclude people based solely on race violated the Equal Protection Clause. This is obviously not a very relevant thing to say, this clause should have already been known front to back by the justices of this case, since and justice is supposed to know any clause or excerpt from the Constitution in order to understand the true meaning of justice and law established by our Founding Fathers.
During the criminal trial in a Kentucky state court, a black man named James Kirkland Batson who was on trial, was charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike down all four black persons from the jury pool resulting in a jury composed of all whites. James wanted to challenge the removal of the jurors since he believed that they violated the Sixth Amendment. Which then gives him the right to an impartial jury and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Batson was convicted on account of both charges placed against him. On appeal, the Court of Kentucky affirmed the convictions and then the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. With the ruling of this case there is still the underlining question that remains, Did Batson’s challenge to remove a potential juror from the jury pool was in fact based on race violations the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? Well, the answer to that question is Yes, and the reason for it being yes, is based on a 7-2 decision, the Court held that while a defendant is not entitled to have a jury completely or partially composed of people of his own race, the state is not permitted to use its peremptory challenges to automatically exclude potential members of the jury due to their race. In addition, the Equal Protection Clause ensures the defendant that the state will not exclude members of the jury venire that are of his own race on account of race or of the false assumption that members of his race or group are not qualified to serve as jurors. Therefore, Justice Lewis Powell, so profoundly states that, “The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice." He is completely correct, in a criminal case, a defendant can make a Equal Protection claim against the discriminatory use of the peremptory challenges at a defendant’s trial. The minute a defendant makes it evident that race was in fact involved when deciding if potential jurors are kept or removed. The burden is then carried on the shoulders of the state and forced to come forward with a substantial race-neutral explanation for the exclusion. In the concurrence many justices of the Supreme Court especially Justice White claimed that the Court’s prior precedent should have warned prosecutors that using peremptory challenges to exclude people based solely on race violated the Equal Protection Clause. This is obviously not a very relevant thing to say, this clause should have already been known front to back by the justices of this case, since and justice is supposed to know any clause or excerpt from the Constitution in order to understand the true meaning of justice and law established by our Founding Fathers.