What should you know about juries in criminal trials?
The jury’s role during the trial is to listen and pay attention to the evidence being presented. They are the trier of facts and ultimately decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
Jury Selection
A Spotlight on the Part of Jury Selection: Batson Challenges
The prosecution and the defense in a criminal case can raise peremptory challenges to eliminate potential jurors who may compromise the impartial viewpoint of a jury. “Peremptory” challenges don’t have to be justified or explained (they are sort of like wild cards in a card game). An attorney can strike a juror using a peremptory challenge based on a hunch or a sense that the prospective juror might favor the opposing side. Because attorneys don’t generally have to give a reason when they use a peremptory challenges, there is a risk that they will be used to strike prospective jurors based on sex, race, ethnicity or religion.
In Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986) the court established that a peremptory challenge can NOT be used to discriminate against and eliminate potential jurors on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or religion. While such discrimination would violate the Due Process of the law, the Batson challenge exists precisely because those violations are alive and well. A Batson challenge is made by one party in response to an opposing party’s peremptory challenge. If a party raises a Batson challenge, the judge will determine if the opposing party’s peremptory challenge sought to eliminate a potential juror based on sex, race, ethnicity, or religion.
Here’s an example of how it works:
Attorney 1: “I would like to use a peremptory challenge to strike this juror.”
Opposing attorney: “I am going to make a Batson challenge; I think Attorney 1 is striking this juror based on her race (or sex/religion/ethnicity). This is the second Black juror Attorney 1 has struck and Attorney 1 hardly asked any meaningful questions of the juror before striking her. (The attorney making the Batson challenge has to explain why they think the strike is based on race/sex/religion/ethnicity or the court will reject the challenge immediately).
The Court: “Attorney 1 do you have a race-neutral reason for striking this juror?”
Attorney 1: States a reason that they believe is race neutral.
Opposing Attorney: Either accepts this reason or argues that the reason given is a pretext or a cover for the real, race-based reason.
The Court: After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court will rule on whether or not to agree with the Batson challenge and accept the juror.
Why did the Prosecution Raise a Batson Challenge?
In a typical case, Batson challenges are used more often by the defense. However, in the Chauvin case we’ve seen them used by the prosecution in response to the Defense’s repeated use of peremptory challenges. The prosecution raised a Batson challenge after the dismissal of at least three Hispanic jurors during the first week of jury selection. When the prosecution raises a Batson challenge, rather than the defense, this is sometimes called a reverse-Batson challenge.
How has Judge Cahill decided on Batson Challenges thus far?
A Judge typically applies a three step analysis to determine the validity of a Batson challenge:
1) The moving party must make an initial showing that the opposing peremptory challenge was based on race or other impermissible grounds. If they can not do that, the challenge will be denied without any argument from the other side.
2) If the court determines that there is an initial showing for the challenge, then the opposing party must tell the court the reasoning for using the peremptory challenge. The reasoning must be neutral, meaning it has to be rational and justifiable. It can not exhibit an inherent discriminatory intent.
3) If the court determines that there is a surface-level neutral reason provided, the moving party must show that the real reason for excluding the juror is impermissible.
Judge Cahill followed this process to review the prosecution’s reverse-Batson challenges of Jurors 1, 3, and 39. Judge Cahill ultimately rejected the idea that any jurors were dismissed based on race. The judge denied the Batson challenges, reasoning that those struck had preconceived notions of the case, meaning that the strikes were allowed. Although frustrating, Cahill’s reasoning follows precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S. Ct. 1769 (1995), the Court held that a “race-neutral explanation” from the party raising a peremptory challenge “need not be persuasive, or even plausible.” A majority of the Court accepted an explanation that a “peremptory challenge of Black male,” whose “long, unkempt hair, a moustache and a beard” was a satisfactory articulation of a “nondiscriminatory reason for the strike.” This decision, in the eyes of many, over-ruled the longstanding protections established in Batson v Kentucky.
In Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986) the court established that a peremptory challenge can NOT be used to discriminate against and eliminate potential jurors on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or religion. While such discrimination would violate the Due Process of the law, the Batson challenge exists precisely because those violations are alive and well. A Batson challenge is made by one party in response to an opposing party’s peremptory challenge. If a party raises a Batson challenge, the judge will determine if the opposing party’s peremptory challenge sought to eliminate a potential juror based on sex, race, ethnicity, or religion.
Here’s an example of how it works:
Attorney 1: “I would like to use a peremptory challenge to strike this juror.”
Opposing attorney: “I am going to make a Batson challenge; I think Attorney 1 is striking this juror based on her race (or sex/religion/ethnicity). This is the second Black juror Attorney 1 has struck and Attorney 1 hardly asked any meaningful questions of the juror before striking her. (The attorney making the Batson challenge has to explain why they think the strike is based on race/sex/religion/ethnicity or the court will reject the challenge immediately).
The Court: “Attorney 1 do you have a race-neutral reason for striking this juror?”
Attorney 1: States a reason that they believe is race neutral.
Opposing Attorney: Either accepts this reason or argues that the reason given is a pretext or a cover for the real, race-based reason.
The Court: After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court will rule on whether or not to agree with the Batson challenge and accept the juror.
Why did the Prosecution Raise a Batson Challenge?
In a typical case, Batson challenges are used more often by the defense. However, in the Chauvin case we’ve seen them used by the prosecution in response to the Defense’s repeated use of peremptory challenges. The prosecution raised a Batson challenge after the dismissal of at least three Hispanic jurors during the first week of jury selection. When the prosecution raises a Batson challenge, rather than the defense, this is sometimes called a reverse-Batson challenge.
How has Judge Cahill decided on Batson Challenges thus far?
A Judge typically applies a three step analysis to determine the validity of a Batson challenge:
1) The moving party must make an initial showing that the opposing peremptory challenge was based on race or other impermissible grounds. If they can not do that, the challenge will be denied without any argument from the other side.
2) If the court determines that there is an initial showing for the challenge, then the opposing party must tell the court the reasoning for using the peremptory challenge. The reasoning must be neutral, meaning it has to be rational and justifiable. It can not exhibit an inherent discriminatory intent.
3) If the court determines that there is a surface-level neutral reason provided, the moving party must show that the real reason for excluding the juror is impermissible.
Judge Cahill followed this process to review the prosecution’s reverse-Batson challenges of Jurors 1, 3, and 39. Judge Cahill ultimately rejected the idea that any jurors were dismissed based on race. The judge denied the Batson challenges, reasoning that those struck had preconceived notions of the case, meaning that the strikes were allowed. Although frustrating, Cahill’s reasoning follows precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S. Ct. 1769 (1995), the Court held that a “race-neutral explanation” from the party raising a peremptory challenge “need not be persuasive, or even plausible.” A majority of the Court accepted an explanation that a “peremptory challenge of Black male,” whose “long, unkempt hair, a moustache and a beard” was a satisfactory articulation of a “nondiscriminatory reason for the strike.” This decision, in the eyes of many, over-ruled the longstanding protections established in Batson v Kentucky.
Race and Juries
Check out our blog post reflecting on the way that race played into jury selection during the Chauvin Trial.