U.S. ex rel. Teague v. Lane, No. 84-2474

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, and BAUER, WOOD, CUDAHY, POSNER, COFFEY, FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and RIPPLE; CUDAHY; This case involves the question whether the Constitution prohibits prosecutors from using their peremptory challenges to exclude potential
• Citation: 779 F.2d 1332
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Frank TEAGUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael P. LANE, Director, Department of Corrections and Michael O'Leary, Warden, Stateville Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 84-2474
• Decision Date: 30 December 1985

Page 1332

779 F.2d 1332 UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Frank TEAGUE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Michael P. LANE, Director, Department of Corrections and
Michael O'Leary, Warden, Stateville Correctional
Center, Respondents-Appellees. No. 84-2474. United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit. Dec. 30, 1985.

Patricia Unsinn, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellant.

Mark Rotert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for respondents-appellees.

Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, and BAUER, WOOD, CUDAHY, POSNER, COFFEY, FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This case was argued on April 9, 1985 to a panel consisting of Judges Cudahy and Coffey, together with Senior Circuit Judge John W. Peck of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 16(e), the panel opinion in this case was circulated to all the judges of the court in regular active service. A majority of the judges in regular active service have voted to rehear this case en banc, the time of argument to be set at a date convenient to the court.

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

This case involves the question whether the Constitution prohibits prosecutors from using their peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors exclusively on the basis of race. The matter was originally heard by a panel consisting of Judge Coffey, Senior Circuit Judge John W. Peck of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation, and me. The panel opinion, which I wrote, vacated and remanded on the grounds that the exercise of peremptory challenges by the prosecutor in this case violated, at least prima facie, the defendant's Sixth Amendment

Page 1333

right to an impartial jury. The panel opinion, together with a dissent by Judge Coffey, was then circulated under our Circuit Rule 16 to the full court, which voted to rehear the matter en banc. I shall briefly outline here the essential content of the opinion of the panel majority to indicate why I believe that en banc review is unnecessary. Judge Peck has requested that I record his agreement with the views which follow.

Frank Teague, a black, was tried before a jury in an Illinois court and convicted of attempted murder and armed robbery. Each side had ten peremptory challenges and the state exercised all of its challenges to exclude black jurors. The defense also challenged one black, and there were no blacks on the resulting jury.

The defense moved for a mistrial, arguing that the state was denying Teague a trial by a jury of his peers by excluding potential jurors on the basis of race. These motions were denied. Although, as things now stand, a prosecutor need not defend his peremptory challenges, the state offered two rationales for its actions: that it was attempting to obtain a balance of men and women on the jury and that it had excused a number of young people. The Illinois Appellate Court noted that the record did not support the state's explanation but held that under existing law it could place no restriction on a prosecutor's use of his peremptory challenges.

The precise issue raised was whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are violated when a prosecutor uses his peremptory challenges to exclude members of one race from a petit jury. Such a use is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so long as the exclusion does not prevent members of a race from ever sitting on juries, "in case after case, whatever the circumstances, whatever the crime, and whoever the defendant or victim may be." Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 223, 85 S.Ct. 824, 837, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965). Swain was clearly decided on equal protection grounds and, although the Court did not question the standing of the defendant Swain, the rights asserted and addressed by the Court were in large measure the rights of blacks who were prevented from serving as jurors. But the right to sit on a jury is quite distinct from the right of a defendant to be tried by a jury from which members of his race have not been systematically excluded.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process as well as equal protection, but at the time Swain was decided it was...