Skip to main content

Exit WCAG Theme

Switch to Non-ADA Website

Accessibility Options

Select Text Sizes

Select Text Color

Website Accessibility Information Close Options
Close Menu

Supreme Court Rules Prosecutors Violated Constitution in Striking all Blacks from Jury

The ABA Journal reports that the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a Georgia death-row inmate who argued that prosecutors at his criminal trial violated his Constitutional rights when they eliminated all prospective black jurors from the jury pool in his case.  In Foster v. Chatman, the Court found that prosecutors’ use of peremptory jury strikes was racially motivated, reversing the trial result and sending the case back to the lower court.

What are peremptory strikes?

The Constitution’s Sixth Amendment grants the defendant in a criminal trial the right to an impartial jury.  This right is popularly known as the right to “a jury of one’s peers,” but primarily is meant to ensure that jurors represent a fair cross-section of the community.  After a jury pool has been assembled, both the prosecution and defense have the right to “strike” – that is, reject – some jurors.  There are two types of challenges to a potential juror:

  1. Challenge for cause – intended to disqualify a juror for a particular, stated reason, such as bias, or personal knowledge of the case before the court.
  2. Peremptory challenge – used to disqualify a juror without expressing any reason. The number of peremptory challenges is limited, and these challenges cannot be used to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity.

The Supreme Court established a framework for courts to examine allegations that a peremptory challenge was used to discriminate in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).  Batson prescribes a three-step process:

  1. The defendant must make a preliminary showing that a peremptory challenge was exercised on the basis of race;
  2. The prosecution must offer a race-neutral reason for exercising the challenge; and
  3. The court must assess both parties’ submissions to determine whether in fact the challenge was racially discriminatory.

Foster v. Chatman

In the recent case, defendant Timothy Foster was charged with burglary and murder of an elderly woman.  He faced the death penalty.  After a detailed process, 42 prospective jurors were deemed qualified to serve.  Four of them were black.  The prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all four.  Thereafter, Foster was convicted and sentenced to death.

Foster argued that two of the four black jurors were struck because of their race.  The evidence showed that, on the jury list in the prosecutor’s files, the names of the four were highlighted and a “B” was written next to each name.  Also, all four names were included on a list in the prosecutor’s files that was labeled “definite nos.”  Other evidence also suggested a focus on the jurors’ race.  Although prosecutors were able to articulate race-neutral reasons to support the strikes, the Supreme Court found those reasons not believable, instead pointing to evidence suggesting deliberate discrimination that included prosecutors’ “shifting explanations, the misrepresentations of the record, and the persistent focus on race in the prosecution’s file.”

Consult an Orlando Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you have been arrested and charged with a crime, you need a knowledgeable criminal defense lawyer on your side.  The skilled, dedicated defense lawyers of The Baez Law Firm can help protect your rights and provide an innovative, aggressive defense to the charges against you.  We have successfully represented clients in Orlando, Miami, Tampa, and throughout Florida.  Contact us for a consultation about your case today.

By submitting this form I acknowledge that form submissions via this website do not create an attorney-client relationship, and any information I send is not protected by attorney-client privilege.

DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

Skip footer and go back to main navigation