Batson v. Kentucky

Synopsis of the Case

James Batson, an African American man, was convicted of burglary and receiving stolen property in a Kentucky circuit court. Controversy arose from the verdict because it was handed down by an ail-White jury. Attorneys for Batson appealed on the basis that the voir dire (the jury selection process) had been unfair.

During voir dire, potential jurors are often selected on the basis of how their attitudes, opinions, and experiences may be related to the case being tried. Depending on these attributes, the prosecution and defense may utilize a limited number of peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges can be used to excuse a potential juror member if one side feels that the juror may side with the opposition. Traditionally, attorneys were able to excuse a member from voir dire without a stated reason.

The prosecuting attorney for the case, Joe Gutmann, used his challenges to excuse all four African American people who could have potentially served as jurors for the case. This led defense attorneys to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that Batson's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated during jury selection.

Significance of Batson for Peremptory Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that peremptory challenges should not be exercised in any way that would violate the rights of the defendant. When used in a discriminatory manner, these challenges have the potential to violate the equal protection clause granted under the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to this, the challenges may violate the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a person the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime had been committed. This means that a jury selected for trial should be representative of the community to which the defendant belongs. The selection of a representative and impartial jury protects the defendant from any arbitrary and unfair actions by the prosecution.

Peremptory challenges not only protect the rights of defendants but also protect those [Page 50]members of the venire (i.e., potential jurors). If venire members are excused solely on the basis of their race, they are not given a fair chance to serve the courts of their community. These members may be able and qualified to serve and may be an asset to the defendant by helping to ensure that the trial is fair and impartial. That chance is destroyed when race alone is a determining factor in jury selection.

Supreme Court Decision

The Batson side appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the case of Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965). This case set the precedent that applied the equal protection clause to peremptory challenges. The Court recognized that denying African Americans participation as jurors violated this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Certiorari (an order for lower courts to send documentation for the higher courts to review the lower court's decision) was granted to determine if Batson was indeed tried under an impartial jury and an unfair representation of the community.

...