The legal tactic in question in Batson v. Kentucky is the peremptory challenge. This landmark Supreme Court case fundamentally altered how attorneys can use these challenges during jury selection.
Understanding Peremptory Challenges
In the U.S. legal system, jury selection involves attorneys from both sides choosing who will serve on the jury. They do this by questioning potential jurors during a process called voir dire. After questioning, attorneys have two types of challenges to remove potential jurors:
- Challenges for Cause: These challenges are used when there's a specific, articulable reason why a potential juror cannot be fair or impartial (e.g., they have a financial interest in the case, are related to a party, or express strong bias). There are an unlimited number of challenges for cause, but they must be approved by the judge.
- Peremptory Challenges: These challenges allow attorneys to remove a potential juror without stating a specific reason. Each side is typically allotted a limited number of peremptory challenges. Historically, these challenges provided attorneys with broad discretion to shape the jury as they saw fit.
The Batson Ruling and Its Impact
Prior to Batson, the use of peremptory challenges was largely unchecked, leading to concerns that they were being used to exclude jurors based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics. Batson v. Kentucky (1986) directly addressed this issue, ruling that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits prosecutors from using peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors solely on account of their race.
The Court held that such a practice violates a defendant's right to a jury drawn from a cross-section of the community and also harms the excluded jurors by denying them participation in civic life. While the Batson case specifically focused on racial discrimination by the prosecution, subsequent rulings have extended the Batson principle to apply to:
- Defense attorneys: Georgia v. McCollum (1992) applied Batson to peremptory strikes made by defense attorneys.
- Gender: J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994) extended the Batson rule to prohibit peremptory challenges based on gender.
- Other protected groups: While not explicitly named by the Supreme Court for every category, lower courts have often applied the Batson framework to prevent discrimination based on other characteristics, such as ethnicity or religious affiliation.
The Batson Challenge Process
To ensure that peremptory challenges are not used discriminatorily, the Batson ruling established a three-step framework, commonly known as the "Batson test," which is applied when a party suspects an opposing attorney has used a peremptory challenge improperly:
| Step | Action | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | Prima Facie Case | The challenging party (the one alleging discrimination) must make a prima facie showing that the peremptory challenge was exercised on the basis of race (or gender, etc.). This often involves showing that the excluded juror is a member of a protected group and that the circumstances raise an inference of discriminatory intent. |
| Step 2 | Neutral Explanation | If a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the attorney who exercised the challenge to provide a race-neutral (or gender-neutral) explanation for the strike. This explanation does not need to be persuasive or even plausible, but it must be based on something other than the juror's race or gender. |
| Step 3 | Court's Ruling | The trial court then must determine whether the challenging party has proven purposeful discrimination. The judge evaluates the credibility of the explanation given by the attorney who made the strike, considering all the circumstances of the voir dire. If the explanation is found to be a pretext for discrimination, the challenge is disallowed. |
The Batson ruling serves as a critical safeguard against discrimination in the jury selection process, reinforcing the principle that a jury should be selected fairly and without prejudice.
