•  
  •  
 

Keywords

racial bias, jury selection, Batson Challenges, Batson v. Kentucky, persecutorial misconduct, Batson, dismissal for cause, peremptory challenge

Abstract

In April of 2024, the District Attorney of Alameda County in California revealed evidence of “serious misconduct” by several prosecutors who oversaw a murder trial in 1993, in which the jury found a Black man guilty and sentenced him to death. The evidence of misconduct included the prosecutors’ trial notes. The notes that have been released suggest the prosecutors struck potential jurors from the jury pool because they were Jewish—the notes include: “I liked him better than any other Jew but no way.” The District Attorney is now looking into the county’s other death penalty cases, some of which took place over forty years ago. She indicated that there is further evidence of similar misconduct against Black and Jewish jury veniremen. While dismissing potential jurors in a criminal trial because of race was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky, proving bias or discrimination in the jury selection process is usually quite difficult. Potential jurors who are not dismissed for cause can be removed using a peremptory challenge, which allows a party to remove a potential juror without providing any justification. While the Court attempted to prevent the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges through its decision in Batson, it is abundantly clear that the current Batson process does little to protect defendants and potential jury members alike from constitutional violations.

This Note will explore the history of the peremptory challenge, explain how Batson protections fall short, and analyze the effects those shortcomings have through a focus on the recent uncovering of jury discrimination in Alameda County, California. Specifically, this Note argues that the incredibly low bar set by Batson, requiring race-neutral explanations for a challenged peremptory strike, allows discrimination in the jury selection process to persist, even in the face of Supreme Court protections. This Note also argues that the evidence used in Batson challenges is simultaneously too difficult to gather in its entirety at the trial level and is often not meaningfully reviewable on appeal. Finally, this Note argues that the misconduct discovered in Alameda County last year is not merely an isolated incident, as evidenced by similar cases in various parts of the country. These cases viewed together suggest a systemic issue for which there does not seem to be a solution absent a radical change to the Batson challenge process or the eradication of the peremptory strike altogether.

Download

Share

COinS