Batson v. Kentucky
Case Overview
The Supreme Court held 7-2 in 1986 that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits prosecutors from using peremptory challenges to remove jurors solely because of their race. The Court established a three-step burden-shifting framework: a defendant makes a prima facie showing of discrimination; the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation; the trial court determines whether the defendant has proved purposeful discrimination. Extended to civil cases, defense strikes, and gender in J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994).
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
The Facts
James Kirkland Batson, a Black man charged with burglary and receipt of stolen goods in Louisville, Kentucky, was tried before an all-white jury. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove all four Black members of the venire. Batson moved to discharge the jury, arguing the strikes violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a cross-section of the community and the Equal Protection Clause. The trial court overruled the objection. Batson was convicted. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider Swain v. Alabama (1965), which had set an impossible evidentiary burden for proving discriminatory jury selection.
The Application
Batson presented a prima facie case of intentional discrimination: the prosecutor struck all four Black jurors from the venire in a case where the defendant himself was Black, a pattern that raised an inference of race-based motivation. Under the previous Swain standard, Batson bore an impossible burden of proving systematic discrimination across multiple prosecutions; the Court rejected this rule as inadequate to vindicate Equal Protection and adopted a lower, more workable threshold instead. Applied to Batson's case, the prosecutor would be required to articulate race-neutral reasons for the strikes, and the trial court would assess the credibility of those explanations, a framework that acknowledges prosecutors' legitimate interest in using peremptory challenges while preventing their use as a vehicle for racial exclusion. By reversing the conviction and establishing this three-step test, the Court signaled that peremptory challenges could no longer serve as an end-run around the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Conclusion
**Landmark 1986 ruling establishing constitutional limits on race-based peremptory challenges.** Though the framework has been criticized for allowing pretextual race-neutral reasons (the 'Batson charade'), it remains the foundational framework for challenging discriminatory jury selection and has been extended to sex-based challenges (J.E.B. v. Alabama, 1994) and applied to defense counsel as well as prosecutors.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Facts
James Kirkland Batson, a Black man charged with burglary and receipt of stolen goods in Louisville, Kentucky, was tried before an all-white jury. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove all four Black members of the venire. Batson moved to discharge the jury, arguing the strikes violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a cross-section of the community and the Equal Protection Clause. The trial court overruled the objection. Batson was convicted. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider Swain v. Alabama (1965), which had set an impossible evidentiary burden for proving discriminatory jury selection.
Issue
Whether a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to remove all Black jurors from the venire in a case involving a Black defendant violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and what evidentiary framework governs such claims.
Rule
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1 (Equal Protection Clause) prohibits state actors, including prosecutors, from exercising peremptory challenges based on a juror's race. The three-step Batson framework: (1) defendant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination from circumstances including the pattern of strikes; (2) burden shifts to the prosecution to articulate a race-neutral reason; (3) trial court makes a credibility determination. Swain v. Alabama (1965) is overruled to the extent it required proof of systematic discrimination across multiple cases.
Analysis
Batson presented a prima facie case of intentional discrimination: the prosecutor struck all four Black jurors from the venire in a case where the defendant himself was Black, a pattern that raised an inference of race-based motivation. Under the previous Swain standard, Batson bore an impossible burden of proving systematic discrimination across multiple prosecutions; the Court rejected this rule as inadequate to vindicate Equal Protection and adopted a lower, more workable threshold instead. Applied to Batson's case, the prosecutor would be required to articulate race-neutral reasons for the strikes, and the trial court would assess the credibility of those explanations. A framework that acknowledges prosecutors' legitimate interest in using peremptory challenges while preventing their use as a vehicle for racial exclusion. By reversing the conviction and establishing this three-step test, the Court signaled that peremptory challenges could no longer serve as an end-run around the Fourteenth Amendment.
Conclusion
**Landmark 1986 ruling establishing constitutional limits on race-based peremptory challenges.** Though the framework has been criticized for allowing pretextual race-neutral reasons (the 'Batson charade'), it remains the foundational framework for challenging discriminatory jury selection and has been extended to sex-based challenges (J.E.B. v. Alabama, 1994) and applied to defense counsel as well as prosecutors.
Notes
476 U.S. 79 (1986). Landmark equal protection case. Overruled Swain v. Alabama (1965). Extended to civil cases and defense in Georgia v. McCollum (1992). Extended to gender in J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994). See Flowers v. Mississippi (2019).
Overview
The Supreme Court held 7-2 in 1986 that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits prosecutors from using peremptory challenges to remove jurors solely because of their race. The Court established a three-step burden-shifting framework: a defendant makes a prima facie showing of discrimination; the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation; the trial court determines whether the defendant has proved purposeful discrimination. Extended to civil cases, defense strikes, and gender in J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994).
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support