Batson v. Kentucky

Decision Date30 April 1986
Docket NumberNo. 84-6263,84-6263
Citation476 U.S. 79,90 L.Ed.2d 69,106 S.Ct. 1712
PartiesJames Kirkland BATSON, Petitioner, v. KENTUCKY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

During the criminal trial in a Kentucky state court of petitioner, a black man, the judge conducted voir dire examination of the jury venire and excused certain jurors for cause. The prosecutor then used his peremptory challenges to strike all four black persons on the venire, and a jury composed only of white persons was selected. Defense counsel moved to discharge the jury on the ground that the prosecutor's removal of the black veniremen violated petitioner's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community, and under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws. Without expressly ruling on petitioner's request for a hearing, the trial judge denied the motion, and the jury ultimately convicted petitioner. Affirming the conviction, the Kentucky Supreme Court observed that recently, in another case, it had relied on Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759, and had held that a defendant alleging lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the venire.

Held:

1. The principle announced in Strauder v. West Virginia, 10 Otto 303, 100 U.S. 303, 25 L.Ed. 664, that a State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded, is reaffirmed. Pp. 84-89.

(a) A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. Strauder v. West Virginia, 10 Otto 303, 305, 100 U.S. 303, 305, 25 L.Ed. 664. However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors. By denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race, the State also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror. Moreover, selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Pp. 85-88.

(b) The same equal protection principles as are applied to determine whether there is discrimination in selecting the venire also govern the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike individual jurors from the petit jury. Although a prosecutor ordinarily is entitled to exercise peremptory challenges for any reason, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome of the case to be tried, the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant. Pp. 88-89.

2. The portion of Swain v. Alabama, supra, concerning the evidentiary burden placed on a defendant who claims that he has been denied equal protection through the State's discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is rejected. In Swain, it was held that a black defendant could make out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination on proof that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. Evidence offered by the defendant in Swain did not meet that standard because it did not demonstrate the circumstances under which prosecutors in the jurisdiction were responsible for striking black jurors beyond the facts of the defendant's case. This evidentiary formulation is inconsistent with equal protection standards subsequently developed in decisions relating to selection of the jury venire. A defendant may make a prima facie showing of purposeful racial discrimination in selection of the venire by relying solely on the facts concerning its selection in his case. Pp. 89-96.

3. A defendant may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant's trial. The defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race. The defendant may also rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate. Finally, the defendant must show that such facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors. The prosecutor may not rebut a prima facie showing by stating that he challenged the jurors on the assumption that they would be partial to the defendant because of their shared race or by affirming his good faith in individual selections. Pp. 96-98.

4. While the peremptory challenge occupies an important position in trial procedures, the above-stated principles will not undermine the contribution that the challenge generally makes to the administration of justice. Nor will application of such principles create serious administrative difficulties. Pp. 98-99.

5. Because the trial court here flatly rejected petitioner's objection to the prosecutor's removal of all black persons on the venire without requiring the prosecutor to explain his action, the case is remanded for further proceedings. Pp. 100.

Reversed and remanded.

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE and MARSHALL, JJ., filed concurring opinions, post, p. 100, 102. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post, p. 108. O'CONNOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 111. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 112. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 134.

J. David Niehaus, Louisville, Ky., for petitioner.

Rickie L. Pearson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., for respondent.

Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., for United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the respondent by special leave of Court.

Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to reexamine that portion of Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), concerning the evidentiary burden placed on a criminal defendant who claims that he has been denied equal protection through the State's use of peremptory challenges to exclude members of his race from the petit jury.1

I

Petitioner, a black man, was indicted in Kentucky on charges of second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. On the first day of trial in Jefferson Circuit Court, the judge conducted voir dire examination of the venire, excused certain jurors for cause, and permitted the parties to exercise peremptory challenges.2 The prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike all four black persons on the venire, and a jury composed only of white persons was selected. Defense counsel moved to discharge the jury before it was sworn on the ground that the prosecutor's removal of the black veniremen violated petitioner's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community, and under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws. Counsel requested a hearing on his motion. Without expressly ruling on the request for a hearing, the trial judge observed that the parties were entitled to use their peremptory challenges to "strike anybody they want to." The judge then denied petitioner's motion, reasoning that the cross-section requirement applies only to selection of the venire and not to selection of the petit jury itself.

The jury convicted petitioner on both counts. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, petitioner pressed, among other claims, the argument concerning the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. Conceding that Swain v. Alabama, supra, apparently foreclosed an equal protection claim based solely on the prosecutor's conduct in this case, petitioner urged the court to follow decisions of other States, People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978); Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, 387 N.E.2d 499, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881, 100 S.Ct. 170, 62 L.Ed.2d 110 (1979), and to hold that such conduct violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment and § 11 of the Kentucky Constitution to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community. Petitioner also contended that the facts showed that the prosecutor had engaged in a "pattern" of discriminatory challenges in this case and established an equal protection violation under Swain.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed. In a single paragraph, the court declined petitioner's invitation to adopt the reasoning of People v. Wheeler, supra, and Commonwealth v. Soares, supra. The court observed that it recently had reaffirmed its reliance on Swain, and had held that a defendant alleging lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the venire. See Commonwealth v. McFerron, 680 S.W.2d 924 (1984). We granted certiorari, 471 U.S. 1052, 105 S.Ct. 2111, 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985), and now reverse.

II

In Swain v. Alabama, this Court recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause." 380 U.S., at 203-204, 85 S.Ct., at 826-27. This principle has been "consistently and repeatedly" reaffirmed, id., at 204, 85...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15536 cases
  • Brumfield v. Stinson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • December 4, 2003
    ...factual determinations must be accorded broad deference under AEDPA. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Brumfield also fails to specifically raise a Batson claim regarding Mr. Hawkins's excusal. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). However, even if the Petition could ......
  • Capote v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 10, 2020
    ...argues that the State used its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed. 2d 69 (1986)."The United States Supreme Court in Batson held that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Unite......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 21, 2018
    ...jury because the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to exclude Black prospective jurors. (See Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ( Batson ); People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 ( Wheeler ).) During jury selection,......
  • People v. Douglas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 2018
    ...subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for six years.1 On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his Batson / Wheeler motion after the prosecutor peremptorily excused the only two openly gay prospective jurors. (See Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Implications Of 'Students For Fair Admissions' For Private Employers
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 12, 2023
    ...2 Brown, 349 U.S. 294 (schools); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) (education); Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory jury strikes); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 US 475 (1954) (composition of juries); New Orleans City Park Improvement Assn. v. Deti......
  • Illinois Civil Practice Guide - 2022 Edition
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • April 4, 2022
    ...attempting to discharge prospective jurors on an impermissible basis, the opposing party can raise an objection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986). The trial court may also raise a Batson challenge. See, e.g., People v. Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d 481, 504 (2006) (holding that courts have s......
  • Shuffle The Deck: The Role The Texas Jury Shuffle Plays In Creating Diverse And Favorable Juries
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 27, 2023
    ...(1997), at 176. 5. Michael M. Gallagher, Abolishing the Texas Jury Shuffle, 35 St. Mary's L.J. 303, 316 (2004) 6. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 7. Blanton v. Quarterman, 543 F.3d 230, 242 (5th Cir. 2008) 8. Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) 9. Id. at 253-54. 10. Michael M. Gallaghe......
361 books & journal articles
  • Jury Selection and the Coase Theorem
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-5, July 2012
    • July 1, 2012
    ...way, numerous commentators have called for the abolition of peremptory challenges altogether.”). 10. See, e.g. , Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 102–08 (1986) (Marshall, J., concurring) (calling for an end to peremptories); Alen v. State, 596 So. 2d 1083, 1086–95 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)......
  • Reviving Teague's "Watershed" Exception.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 44 No. 2, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...on the basis of its race-discriminatory origins when the Court declined to apply retroactively the rule announced in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986), that peremptory challenges based solely on race are unconstitutional. See Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 261 (1986) (holding Batson......
  • Sacrificing Secrecy
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Law Review (FC Access) No. 55-2, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...United States v. Heller, 785 F.2d 1524, 1526 (11th Cir. 1986).16. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156 (1968).17. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 87 (1986).18. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 407 (1991) ("Jury service preserves the democratic element of the law, as it guards the rights......
  • Jury selection
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2015 Contents
    • August 2, 2015
    ...Eisenberg, 206 A.D.2d 324, 615 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1st Dept. 1994), a case in which the trial court denied a challenge, under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), to the opposing party’s use of racially-discriminatory peremptory challenges. For Batson challenges t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 provisions
  • Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 53, No. 32. August 12, 2023
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Register
    • Invalid date
    ...for use in a Batson challenge and proposed querying for gender to provide additional relevant Batson information. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). In response to the Interbranch’s request, the Committee proposed sion (h), which would permit retention of juror data, provided the d......
  • Chapter 318, AB 3070 – Juries: peremptory challenges
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2020
    ...including whether the counsel or counsel's office who made the challenge has a history of prior violations under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, Section 231.5, or this section. (e) A peremptory challenge for any of the following reasons is pres......
  • Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 53, No. 12. March 25, 2023
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Register
    • Invalid date
    ...proposed amendment was informed, in part, by the importance of gathering such information for Batson challenges. In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court of the United States held that ‘‘the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors sol......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT