Batson V. Kentucky - Batson in Modern Law

Batson in Modern Law

Since it has become such an oft-used tactic, the term "Batson challenge" has come to mean the act of claiming, based on this decision, that a trial should be invalidated on the basis of peremptory challenges having excluded a cognizable group from the jury, such as excluding on the basis of race alone. The Batson decision was in reference to jury selection in criminal trials, but the court later extended the same rule to civil trials in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company.

Batson's authority has recently been reinforced in a pair of 2005 decisions, Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) and Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005).

The idea of Batson challenges also extends to sex-based peremptory challenges. See J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994).

An attempt to extend Batson to cover sexual orientation failed in U.S. v. Blaylock. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit doubted that Batson covered sexual orientation but that even if it did the prosecution in this case had "offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for striking the panel member".

Although the issue has yet to come before a federal court, in state courts, Batson has been applied to discriminatory use of peremptory strikes against judges. For example, in Superior Court v. Williams, 8 Cal. App. 4th 688, defense counsel objected to the prosecution’s motion to disqualify an African-American judge, suspecting that the motion was racially motivated. The Court noted that Batson’s use of Equal Protection to combat racially discriminatory strikes against jurors was well established, and that subsequent decisions had extended these protections in other contexts. The Court held that “these principles are equally applicable to race-based challenges to judges.”