I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 3 - CT - 0 1 6 8 6 - S CT
J ERRY Mc GEE
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
ON M OTI ONS F OR RE HEAR I NG ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 25/ 2001 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES E. GRAVES , J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: THO M AS W
. POW ELL AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : W
. D A N I EL H I N CH CL I FF DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: E L E ANOR F AYE P E T E RS ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF APPEALS I S AFF I RM ED. THE J UDGMENT OF T HE CI RC UI T CO UR T OF T HE F I RS T J UDI CI AL DI S T RI CT OF HI NDS CO U N TY I S RE V ER SED , A N D TH I S CA SE I S REMA NDED TO THAT COURT F OR A N E W T R I A L - 01/ 18/ 2007 M O T I O N S FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 09/ 28/ 2006 M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. W ALLER, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he m ot i ons f

orr ehea r i ng f

i l ed by J erry M cG ee ar e gr ant ed. The pr evi ous opi ni ons
are w ith d raw n , an d thes e o p inion s are su b sti tuted there for.

### 2

¶ 2
. Je rry M c G e e w a s c o n v ic te d o f tw o c o u n ts o f a rm e d ro b b e ry b y a H in d s C o u n ty C i r cui tC our tj ury and s ent ence d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm enti n the cu st od y of the M i s s i s s i ppi D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s . T h e C o u rto f A p p e a ls r e v e rs e d th e ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n . See Mc G e e v. S ta te , ___ So. 2d ___, 2005 W L 2739827 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005). W e af f i rm the deci s i on of

the C our tof

A ppeal s , r ever s e the j udgm ente nt er ed and s ent ence i m pos ed by the C irc u it C o u rt o f th e F ir st J u d icia l D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty , an d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial in
acc or dance w i th thi s opi ni on. FACTS ¶3
. O n J anuary 4, 2 00 0, M c G e e a pp r oa c he d tw o w omen wi th a n unl oaded . 12 gauge pi s t ol g r i p s ho t gu n, whi c h w a s wr a pp e d up i n a y e l l ow cl oth, a nd d e mand e d the i rm oney. T he w om en t es t i f

i ed they neversaw t he gun, butt hey coul d t el l i tw as a gun underthe yel l ow cl oth. T he w om en s cr eamed a nd r an, a nd M cG ee gr abbed one of thei rpurs es. A nearby
s ecur i ty guar d hear d the s cr eams a nd s aw M cG ee runni ng t ow ar d hi m w i th a pur s e. W hen the guar d ga ve chas e, M cG ee thr ew the pur s e atthe guar d. T he guar d t ackl ed M cG ee, and the s hot gun f

el l t o the gr ound. T he guar d w as abl e t o r es tr ai n M cG ee unt i l pol i ce arri ved. A Ja c k so n p o lice o ffic e r te stifie d th a t h e sa w th e s h o tg u n o n th e g ro u n d w ith a y e llo w c lo th
w r apped a r ound the handl e. H e r etr i eved the gun butl ef tthe yel l ow c l oth. M cG ee s i gned
a con fes si on bu tden i ed thathe ev er exhi bit ed the shotgun o r poi nted i tatthe v i ct i m s. ¶4. I n M cG ee’ s f

i r s ttr i al , a mi s tr i al w as decl ar ed bec aus e of a hung j ury. T he s econd tr i al
r es ul t ed i n a convi ct i on. T he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the convi ct i on, f i ndi ng thatgender d isc rim in a tio n b y th e S tate in th e s e lec tio n o f th e ju ry w a rra n ted a n e w trial u n d e r th e p lain

### When a Bats on challen ge is raised, a three-p ron gedinquiryensu es. First, th e party 1 

### obje cting to theperem

ptor y chall enge“must

m akea prim a fa ci e s howing that ra cewas the crit eria for theexerci seof the perem ptor y strike .” Lyn ch v. State , 877 So. 2d 1254, 1270- 71 (Mi ss . 2004) . Second, the burden s hif ts to t he party who exe rc is ed the c hal le nge to givea race-neutral reasonfor ex ercisingthe p erempto ry strik e. Id . at 1271. Finally, thetrial c ourt det er mines whether

theparty obj ec ting to the perem ptor y strikehas shown the pres enc e of purpo seful d iscriminatio n inthe strik e’s use. Id . at 12 72
. See Bats on v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 , 10 6 S . Ct. 1 71 2, 9 0 L . Ed . 2d69 (19 86 ). 3 err ordo c tr i ne . W e gr a nt e d the St a t e ’ s pe t i t i on f orw r i tof

c e r t i or a r i a nd no w f

i nd tha tthe C o u rto f A p p e a ls w a s c o rr e c t in its d e c is io n . DI S CU S S I ON BA T S ON VI OL AT I ON ¶ 5
. M cG ee r ai s ed a B at s on ch al l enge dur i ng voi rdi r e ar gui ng t he St at e w as i m perm i s s i bl y s tr i ki ng A f r i can- A m er i can j ur or s . T he pr os ecut or gave genderas her 1
rac e-n eu tr al reaso n for stri k ing a juro r:

BY THE S TAT E: Y our H on or, on pan el num ber 5 j ur or

n u m b e r 4 , M r. W a sh in g to n . I ac tu a lly lik e d h im . H e h a s a c o lleg e e d u c a tio n , is w e ll-ed u c a ted e x c e p t fo r th e fa c t th a t h is br otherappar ent l y w as convi ct ed i n a drug tr i al i n M adi s on Count y, a nd thatdi d gi ve m e s om e conc ern. T hatw as the r eas on I s tru c k h i m. BY THE C OURT: Bu t M s . De a n d r e a ' s [ a n o th e rj u r o r ] ma ma

w as convi ct ed of

a drug cr i m e i n H i nds C o u n ty. Y o u d idn ' t stri k e h er. B Y T H E S T A T E : I ag ree , Y o u r H o n o r. B Y T H E C O U R T : T el l m e the di ff erence betw een her and a b la c k m a n w h o s e [b ro th e r w a s c o n v ic te d ].

### 4 B Y T H E S T A T E : W e ll, Y o u r H o n o r, it' s d if fi c u lt t o tak e it on a j uror by j uror basi s. I t oo k these j urors as a w hol e. T her e w er en' tany s peci f i c thi ngs otherthan the w ay they- l i ke I s ai d w i th M r . W as hi ngt on, i tconce rned m e thathi s br otherw as in M adi s on C ounty. Q
. B u t M s. D ea n d rea ' s m am a being co nv i ct ed d i dn ' tco n ce rn you? A
. A nd, Y ourH on or, the r eas on I don' tl i ke tryi ng t o do th e s e B a ts o n c h a lle n g e s p ie c e m e a l is b e c a u se it' s d iffic u lt beca us e ther e ar e g oi ng t o be j ur or s as w e go al ong thro u g h o u t th is pa n el th at I ab so lutely ac ce p t th at are A f r i can- A m er i cans thathave r el at i ves thathave con vict i on s. S o it ' s dif

fi cultf or m e t o ex plai n in one c ase w h en -- Q
. R i g h tn o w a l l I 'm a s k i n g y o u i s e x p l a i n w h y y o u w e r e n 't c o n c e rn e d a b o u t M s. D e a n d re a ' s m o th e r w h o h a s th is convi ct i on f

ora drug of

f ens e. A
. Y our H on or, thatdi d conce rn m e. T he otherr eas on – a n d i th a d n o th i n g t o d o w i th M r . W a s h i n g t o n 's r a c e – i t 's th a t h e ' s a m a le. A n d I d o n ' t k n o w if g e n d e r is dis cri m i nati on or som ething, b u t M s. D eand rea i s a fe m a le, s o b e tw e e n th e tw o , a fe m a le o r a m a le, I w o u ld r atherhave a f

emal e, you know , t aki ng cr i m i nal convi ct i ons , i f

that f ami l y m emberhave [ s i c] cr i m i nal con vict i on s. ¶6. M cG ee m ade no obj ect i on t o t he S t at e’s use of gender as a r ace - neutr al r eas on f or excl udi ng t he j ur or . T he C our tof A ppeal s char act er i zed de f ens e couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o obj ect
as a f ai l ur e t o r ai s e a Bat

s on iss u e a n d fo u n d th a t n e g lec tin g to ra ise su c h a n o b jec tio n w o u ld
no rmal l y ba rM c G e e ’ s a r gu mentc on c e rni ng the St a t e ’ s u s e o f g e nd e ri n j ury s el ect i on. McG ee , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 7 3 9 8 2 7 , at * 2 -3 ; s ee al s o W ee ks v. S ta te , 8 0 4 S o. 2d 98 0, 98 7 (M i ss.

### 5

2001)
. D es pi t e the purpor t ed pr ocedur al bar , the C our tof A ppeal s r evi ew ed the i s s ue of the j ur or ’ s e xcl us i on by r el yi ng on M cG ee’ s r i ghtt o r ai s e the i s s ue f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe al
u n d e r t h e p la in e rr o r d o c tr in e . McG ee , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 7 3 9 8 2 7 a t * 4 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f oun d the St a t e ’ s o n- the
- r e c or d a dmi s s i on o f g e nd e rd i s c r i mi na t i on c a s td ou bto n the i nt egr i ty of

M cG ee’ s ent i r e tr i al and r ever s ed hi s convi ct i on and r emanded the ca s e f ora new tr i al
. W e agr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s ’ deci s i on. ¶ 7
. B at

s on and i t s progen y anti ci pated a defend ant’ s struggle t o show a prosecutor ’s use of per empt ory chal l enges t o r i d a j ury of m ember s of a s peci f

i c gr oup bas ed on s om e di s t i nct
c h a ra c te r is ti c li k e ra c e o r g e n d e r. See B at s on , 4 7 6 U .S . a t 9 2 -9 5
. See a l so J. E. B . v. A la b a ma , 5 1 1 U
. S
. 1 2 7 , 1 1 4 S
. C t. 1 4 1 9 , 1 2 8 L
. E d
. 2 d 8 9 (19 9 4 ). T h e lan g u ag e o f B at s on , ho w e ve r , c l e a r l y a pp l i e s t o s i tua t i on s wher e a p a t t e rn of d i s c r i mi na t i on i s p r es enti n one p a rt y ’s u s e o f i ts p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s . See B ats on , 4 7 6 U .S . at 9 6 -9 8 ; Ho rn e v. S ta te , 8 1 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 8 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); R a n da ll v. S ta te , 7 1 6 S o . 2 d 5 8 4 , 5 8 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). T he pr es entcas e, how ever , di d noti nvol ve the s ys t emat i c exc l us i on of m al es f r om a j ury but onl y the exc l us i on of

a s i ngl e mal e j ur or . T he S t at e’ s us e of genderas a r eas on f

orthe excl us i on of

a mal e j ur orf

r om the j ury panel vi ol at ed M cG ee’ s r i ght s underthe equa l p ro te c tio n c la u s e . See J . E. B. , 5 1 1 U .S . a t 1 3 0 -3 1
. ¶8
. T he f

ai l ur e t o o bj e c tt o the St a t e ’ s a c t i on s du r i ng j ury s e l e c t i on no rmal l y ba r s t he d e fe n d a n t f

ro m r a is in g th e is s u e o n a p p e a l. S p ice r v. S ta te , 921 So. 2d 292, 309 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 2 0 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 )); s ee al s o Ch a se v. S ta te , 645 So. 2d 829, 843- 44 ( M i s s . 1994) (w her e w e appl i ed a pr ocedur al bart o a Bat s on i s s ue

### 6

w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t fa iled to ra ise it d u rin g h is tria l). H o w e v e r, if th e re is a fin d in g o f p lain
err or , a r evi ew i ng courtm ay cons i dert he i s s ue r egar dl es s of the pr ocedur al bar
. A r evi ew underthe pl ai n err ordoctr i ne i s nece s s ary w hen a pa r ty’ s funda m enta l r i ght s ar e af f ect ed,
a n d th e e rr o r r e s u lts in a m a n if e s t m is c a rr ia g e o f j u s tic e . W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 794 So. 2d 181, 187- 88 ( M i s s . 2001)
. T o det erm i ne i f pl ai n err orhas occurr ed, w e mustdet erm i ne “i f the tr i al courthas devi at ed f r om a l egal rul e, w hetherthaterr ori s pl ai n, cl earorobvi ous , and
w hetherthe err orhas pr ej udi ced the out come of the tr i al
. ” Cox v. S ta te , 793 So. 2d 591, 597 ( M i s s . 2001) ( r el yi ng on G ru b b v. S ta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 , 7 8 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ); P o rte r v . S ta te , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 2 5 0 , 2 6 0 -61 (M iss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 )). ¶9. A l l ow i ng t he S t at e t o exclude the pot ent i al j ur or bas ed on hi s genderw as i ndeed a d e v ia tio n fr o m s o u n d p re c e d e n t. See J . E. B. , 511 U
. S. at139- 41; D u p la n tis v . S ta te , 644 So. 2d 1235, 1246 ( M i s s . 1994)
. T her ef or e, w e w i l l r evi ew M cG ee’ s cl ai m of a B at s on vi ol at i on underthe pl ai n e rr ordoc tr i ne. T he r ecor d undoubt edl y s how s the pr os ecut orhad a d iscri m inato ry in tent in h er a tt em p t t o p rev en t W ash ing ton from b eing sea ted a s a ju ror. ¶10. A "def

endant[ has ] t he r i ghtt o be tr i ed by a j ury w hos e mem ber s ar e s el ect ed pur s uant to n o n d is c ri m in a to ry c ri te ri a . J . E. B. , 511 U
. S. at129. I n J . E. B. , t he Supre m e C our ts t at ed,
w e have r eaf

f i rm ed r epea t edl y ourcomm i tm entt o j ury s el ect i on pr ocedur es thatare f

ai rand nondi s cr i m i nat ory. W e have re c o g n iz e d t h a t w h e th e r t h e tr ia l is c ri m in a l o r c iv il, pot ent i al j urors, as w el las l i t iga nts , ha ve an eq ua lprotect i on ri gh tt o jury s el ect i on pr ocedur es thatar e f r ee f r om s tat e- s

ponsore d gr oup s t er eot ypes r oot ed i n, and r ef

l ect i ve of , his t or i cal

pr ej udi ce .

### 7

I d. ( emphasi s a dded)
. M or e s peci f i cal l y, the C our the l d “ [ i ] nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on on the bas i s of genderby s t at e ac t or s vi ol at es the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e, par t i cul ar l y w her e, as her e, the di scr i m i nat i on s erves t o r at i f y and perpetuat e i nvi di ous , ar chai c, and overbr oad
s t er eotypes aboutthe rel at i ve abi l i t i es of m en and w om en. ” I

d. at130- 31. M or eover , “a
cons i s t entpatt ern of

of f i ci al r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i s [ not ] a ne ces s ary pr edi cat e t o a vi ol at i on of the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e. ” V il lage of A r lington Hei

ght s v. Metr o. Hous. D ev. Cor p. , 4 2 9 U
. S
. 2 5 2 , 2 6 6 n . 1 4 , 9 7 S
. C t. 5 5 5 , 5 0 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 5 0 (19 7 7 ). ¶11. B as ed on the above pr ece dent , w e f i nd that , beca us e the St at e adm i t t ed t hat i tw as di s cr i m i nat i ng agai ns ta man i n i t s us e of a per empt ory s tr i ke, M cG ee’ s r i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on was v i ol a t e d. W e f urthe rf i nd tha t , b a s e d on the a bo ve p r e c e de nt , o nl y one i ns t ance – nota cons i s t entpatt ern – of purpos ef

ul di s cr i m i nat i on i s enough t o pr ove a d iscri m inato ry p u rpo se. B ec au se M cG ee ’s r igh t to eq u al pro tecti o n w as v iolated, th e e n ti re j udi ci al pr oces s w as i nf ect ed, and w e mustr ever s e the j udgm entof c onvi ct i on and r emand fo r a n e w trial. CO NC L US I ON ¶12. W e af

f i rm the j udgm entof

t he C our tof A ppeal s , re ver s e the j udgm entent er ed by and the s ent ence i m pos ed by the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty, M iss iss ip p i, an d re m a n d th is c a se to th e c irc u it co u rt fo r a n e w trial in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is opi ni on. ¶ 1 3
. T HE J UD GMENT OF THE COURT OF APP EA LS I S AF F I RMED . T HE J UD GME N T OF T HE CI RC UI T CO UR T OF T HE F I RS T J UD I CI AL DI S T RI CT OF

### 8

HI NDS COUNTY I S REVE RS ED , AND T HI S CAS E I S RE M ANDE D T O THAT CO URT FOR A NEW TRI AL. S M I T H, C. J . , CO B B , P . J . , DI AZ , CA RL S ON , D I C KI N S ON AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , CO NCU R. EAS LEY, J. , DI S S ENTS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI O N. DI CK I NSO N, J . , SPECI ALLY C ON CUR S W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON J OI NE D B Y S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OB B , P . J J . , DI AZ , CA RL S ON AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . GR AV E S , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶14. T hi s cas e pr esent s us w i t h an un usuall y st ark an d cl earepi s ode of a pr os ecut or vi ol at i ng the f

undament al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of both the accus ed and a pr os pect i ve j ur or b y e x c lu d in g th e ju ro r b e c a u se o f h is g e n d e r. W h e n c h a llen g e d b y th e trial c o u rt a s to
w hetherherper empt ory s tr i ke w as r aci al l y m ot i vat ed, t he pr os ecut orunam bi guous l y s t at ed
on the record that s he w as exerci si ng a perem ptory stri ke o n Juror W ashi ng t on , no tbecau se
o f h is ra c e , b u t b e c a u se “ h e ’s a m a le .” T h e p ro se c u to r a ttem p ted to ju stify th is di s cr i m i nat ory s tr i ke by s ayi ng, “[ a] nd I don’ tknow i f genderi s di s cr i m i nat i on ors om ethi ng, butM s . D eandr ea i s a f emal e, so betw een the tw o, a fe m al e ora mal e, I w oul d r atherhave
a fe m a le . . . . ” S u ffic e it t o sa y , the p ro se c u to r in this ca se en g a g e d in b lata n t, i m p e rm iss ib le di s cr i m i nat i on. ¶15. T he l aw pe r t ai ni ng t o r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i n j ury s el ect i on a ppl i es equal l y t o gender di s cr i m i nat i on. U ndeni abl y, l aw f ul di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed upon gende ri n j ury s el ect i on cont i nued l ong af

t erthe U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d i n S tra u de r v . W e st V irg in ia , 100 U
. S. 303, 310, 25 L
. E d. 664 ( 1880) , thatpurpo sef ul excl us i on of

j ur or s bas ed on r ace vi ol at es the E qu al P r ot ect i on C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endmentt o the Feder al

### Mississip pi co ntinuedto p roh ibit w omenfrom serv ingo n juries as late as 19 61
. See 2 

### J. E. B. v . A l ab am a e x rel . T. B. , 5 11 U.S. 127, 132 n. 3, 114 S. Ct. 1419, 128 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1994) (c iting Hoyt

v. Florida , 368 U. S. 57, 62, 82 S. Ct. 159, 7 L. Ed. 2d 118 ( 1961))
. 9 C ons t i tut i on. I n f

act , the S trau derC our ts peci f i cal l y hel d thatthe St at e “may conf i ne the
s el ect i on [ of

j ur or s ] t o m al es . ” I

d. ¶ 1 6
. T h is w a ll o f d isc rim in a tio n b e g a n to c ru m b le, th o u g h , in 1 9 4 6 w h e n th e C o u rt h e ld th a t, i n sta tes w h e re lo c a l l a w allo w e d w o m e n to se rv e o n ju rie s in sta te c o u rt, w o m e n c o u ld 2
n o t b e e x c lu d e d fr o m th e v e n ir e in fe d e ra l c o u rt . B al lar d v. U nited States , 329 U
. S. 187, 193, 67 S. C t . 261, 91 L
. E d. 181 ( 1946)
. T he coup de gr as w as del i ver ed i n 1994 w hen the C our thel d i n J

. E. B. v. A la b a ma ex r el
. T. B. , 511 U
. S. 127, 114 S. C t . 1419, 128 L
. E d. 2d 8 9 (19 9 4 ) th at “[d]i scrim ination in jury selec tio n , w h ethe r ba sed o n rac e o r on g en d er” vi ol at es the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment
. 511 U
. S. at140. T he C o u rt w e n t o n to sta te the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l ause pr ohi bi t s di s cr i m i nat i on i n j ury s el ect i on on the bas i s of gender , oron the as s um pt i on thatan i ndi vi dual w i l l b e bi as ed i n a part i cul arcas e f

orno r eas on ot hert han the f actthatthe per s on happens t o be a w om an orhappens t o be a man. A s w i th r ace , the ‘ cor e guar ant ee of equal p ro tec tio n , en su rin g c iti z e n s th a t th e ir S tate w ill n o t dis c rim in a te . . . , w o u ld be meani ngl es s w er e w e t o appr ove the excl us i on of j ur or s on the bas i s of

s uch a s s u m p tio n s , w h ic h a ri s e s o le ly fr o m th e ju ro rs ’ [ g e n d e r]. I d. at146 ( quot i ng B at

s on v. K entucky , 476 U
. S. 79, 97-98, 106 S. C t . 1712, 90 L
. E d. 2d 69 ( 1986) )
. T he J

. E. B. Courta l s o s t at ed that“ [ f ] ai l i ng t o pr ovi de j ur or s the s ame pr ot ect i on ag ains t gen d er d iscri m ination as ra ce d iscrim ination co u ld frustrate the p u rpo se o f B at s on i t s el f
. ” 511 U
. S. at145. T hus , any di s cus s i on of the l aw pert ai ni ng t o r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on in jury selec ti o n ap p li es e q u all y to d iscri m ination b ase d u p o n g en d er.

### In fact Bats on over rul ed Sw ain to the ext ent that c as e re quired a petitioner to 3 

### establisha systematic p attern o f discrimin ationin jury selectio n inord er to prev ail. Bats on , 476 U.S. at

100. 10 A pat t er n of

dis cr i m i nat i on is notr equi r ed. ¶1 7. A l t hough t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B at s on post dat ed Str auder b y o v er a
c e n tu ry , B at

s on pr ovi ded s i gni f

i cantel abor at i on and the pr oces s t o be f ol l ow ed w hen di s cr i m i nat i on i n j ury sel ect i on i s s us pect ed. I n B at s on , the p rose cu tor u sed p ere m p tory
s tr i kes t o excl ude al l f

ourA f r i can- A m er i cans on the veni r e, and the def endantw as convi ct ed by an al l
- w hi t e j ury. 476 U
. S. at83. R el yi ng on S w a in v. A la b a ma , 3 8 0 U .S . 2 0 2 , 8 5 S . C t. 824, 13 L. Ed. 2d 75 9 ( 19 65 ) , the Sup r e me Courtof K e ntuc ky a f

f i rmed the c on vi c t i on, sta tin g “ a d e fe n d a n t al le g in g lac k o f a fa ir c ro ss se c tio n m u st d e m o n stra te s y ste m a tic exclus i on of

a gr oup of

j ur or s f r om the veni r e. ” B at

s on , 4 76 U. S. a t8 4. I n r e ver s i ng t he K entucky court , the U ni t ed S t at es S upre m e C our tm ade i tcrys t al cl earthatt o pr evai l on a

“ B at s on ch a llen g e ,” a d e fe n d a n t i s n o t req u ire d to d e m o n stra te a p a ttern o r m u lti p le 3 i ns t ance s of

di s cr i m i nat i on: [ T ] hi s C our thas r ecogni zed thata def endantm ay make a pr i m a f aci e s how i ng o f p u rp o se fu l ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n in se lec tio n o f th e v e n ire b y re ly in g so lely on the f act s conce rni ng i t s s el ect i on i n h i s case . T h e s e d e c isio n s a re in acc ordance w i th the pr opos i t i on, art i cul at ed i n A r l i ngt on H ei ght s v. Metr opol i tan H

ous i ng D eve l opm ent

C or p. , tha t ‘a c onsi s t ent pat t ern of of f i ci al raci al di s cri m i nat i on’ i s not ‘ a neces s ary predi cat e t o a vi ol at i on o f t h e E q u a l P r o te c t io n C la u s e . A sing le i n v idiou sly d iscri m inato ry g o v e rn m e n tal a c t’ is n o t ‘i m m u n ize d b y the ab se n c e o f su c h d isc rim in a tio n in the maki ng of

othercompar abl e dec i s i ons . ’ 429 U
. S. at266 n. 14. For evi dent i ary r equi r ement s t o di ct at e that‘ several m us ts uf f erdi s cr i m i nat i on’ b e fo re o n e c o u ld o b

je c t, McC ray v. N

ew Y ork , 4 6 1 U .S . a t 9 6 5 (M a rs h a ll, J ., dis senti ng fr om den i al of cer t i orar i ), w ou l d b e i nco nsi st ent w i th the prom i se o f e q u a l p ro tec tio n to a ll.

### Whil e a “pattern” o f strikes against a s et of j uror s c an give ris e to an infe re nceof 4 

### d is crim inatio n, “ t hepr ose cut or’ s que stions and st ate ment s dur ing voi r di re exami nati on and in exe rc is ing hischall enge s may [als o] support . . . an inf er enc e of dis cr imi natory pu rpo se .” Ba t

son , 4 7 6 U .S. at 9 7 (emph asis add ed). T his is p recisely th e scenario pre se nte d for

our c onsi deration in thi s c as e. 11 B at s on , 4 7 6 U
. S
. at 95 -96 (fi rstem p h asis in o ri g inal; r em ainin g em p h asis ad d ed ). 4 ¶18. I n l i ghtof

t his clearg uidance, a patt ern of di s cr i m i nat i on i s nota pr er equi s i t e f or demonstr at i ng a Bat

s on vi ol at i on. The pr os ecut or ’ s admi t t edl y di s cr i m i nat ory r eas oni ng f or strik in g Ju ro r W a sh in g to n w a s s u ffic ien t. B ats on protect

s the righ t

s of bo th the def

endan tan d the potent i al j uror. ¶19
. I w h o leh e a rte d ly a g re e w ith th e m ajority ’s co n clus ion that Jerry M cG ee ’s
cons t i tut i on al ri ght s w er e vi ol at ed. I al s o f i nd the conc l us i on i nes capabl e thatthe d isc rim in a to ry e x c lu sio n o f Ju ro r W a sh in g to n v io late d h is o w n c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts a s w e ll. ¶20. T he B at

s on C our ts quar el y addr es s ed thi s i s s ue. A f t eres t abl i s hi ng that “[ p] urpos ef ul
r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i n s el ect i on of the veni r e vi ol at es a def endant ’ s r i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on, ” id. at86, the C our tw enton t o s ay [ r] aci al d i scr i m i nati on in sel ect i on o f j urors h arm s no to nly the acc used w ho se l i f e orl i bert y t hey ar e s um m oned t o try. C om pet ence t o s erve as a j ur or u lti m a tely d e p e n d s o n a n a ss e ss m e n t o f in d iv id u a l q u a lifica tio n s a n d a b ili ty im p a rt ia lly to c o n s id e r e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a t a tr ia l. See T hiel v. So uthern P aci f i c C o. , 3 2 8 U .S . 2 1 7 , 2 2 3 -2 4 . A p e rso n ’s r a c e sim p ly ‘is u n re late d to h is fi tnes s as a juro r. ’ I

d. at227 ( Fr ankf

ur t er , J
. , di s s ent i ng)
. A s l ong ago as Str auder , ther efor e, the C our tr ecogni zed thatby denyi ng a per s on p a rticip a tio n in jur y se rv ice o n ac c o u n t of h is ra c e , the S tate u n c o n stitu tio n a lly di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tthe exc l uded j ur or . 100 U
. S. at308. B at s on , 476 U
. S. at87. T he C our tl at er , i n J . E. B. , ec h o e d th is h o ld in g a n d a p p lied it t o d iscri m ination b ase d o n g en d er:

### 12

I n r ece ntcas es w e have emphasi zed thati ndi vi dual j ur or s themsel ves have a ri g h t to n o n d is c ri m in a to ry ju ry s e le c tio n p ro c e d u re s . [C ita tio n s o m itte d .] C ontr ary t o res po nd ent ’ s s ugges t i on, thi s r i ghtext ends t o both m en and w o m e n . See Mis s is s i

ppiU ni v. ForW

om en v. H

ogan , 4 5 8 U .S
. a t 72 3 (th a t a s t at e pr act i ce ‘ di s cr i m i nat es agai ns tm al es ra thert han aga i ns tf emal es does not exem pt i tfr o m sc ruti ny or r edu ce the st and ard of r eview ’)
. . . . A l l persons, w hen gr ant ed the opportuni ty t o s erve o n a jur y, have the r i ghtnott o be excl uded s umm a r i l y b e c a us e of di s c r i m i nat ory and s t er eotypi cal pr es um pt i ons thatr ef l ectand r ei nf

or ce pa t t erns of

hi s t or i cal di s cr i m i nat i on. J . E. B. , 511 U
. S. at140-42. T hus , i ti s beyond debat e thatt he pr os ecut ori n thi s cas e vi ol at ed notonl y the cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of J erry M cG ee, butal s o thos e of J ur orW as hi ngt on. P lain err or – cert ain err ors are never ha rm l ess ¶21
. T h e e x clusi on of JurorW ashi ng t on based on his gend er w as, i nd ee d , p lai n erro r. Si gni f i cant l y, the def

endant , i n thi s cas e, w as notr equi r ed t o dem on stra t e thatthe
c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n p re ju d ice d th e o u tco m e o f h is tria l. ¶22. Fi r s t , i n the cont ext of harm l es s err or anal ys i s , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Courthas cat egor i zed c ons t i tut i onal err or s i nt o tw o gr oups : tr i al err or s and f r am ew ork er r or s . T r i al
err or s ar e thos e “w hi ch occ ur [ ] dur i ng the pr es ent at i on of the cas e t o the j ury, and w hi ch may th e re fo re b e q u a n tit a tiv e ly a ss e ss e d in th e c o n tex t o f o th e r e v id e n c e p re se n te d in o rd e r to det erm i ned w hetheri t s adm i s s i on w as harm l es s beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” A r i z ona v. F u lm in a n te , 4 9 9 U
. S
. 2 7 9 , 3 0 7 -08 , 1 1 1 S
. C t. 1 2 4 6 , 1 1 3 L
. E d
. 2 d 3 0 2 (1 9 9 1 ). T h ese erro rs
are s ubj ectt o h arm l ess erroranalysi s. ¶2 3. C er t ai n err or s , how ever , m ay neve rbe consi der ed harm l es s . T hes e i ncl ude
c o n stitu tio n a l d e p riv a tio n s in v o lv in g a “ stru c tu ra l d e fe c t af fe c tin g th e fra m e w o rk w ith in
w h ic h th e tr ia l p ro c e e d s ,” ra th e r t h a n a n e rr o r i n th e tr ia l its e lf
. I d. at310. C l ear l y, the di s cr i m i nat ory s tr i ki ng of a j ur orbas ed on hi s genderdi r ect l y i m pact s the i nt egr i ty of the

### 13

j udi ci al pr oces s and “a ff ect [ s ] the f

r amew ork w i thi n w hi ch the tr i al pr ocee ds
. ” I d. Cf
. V asqu ez v. H

il lery , 474 U
. S. 254, 106 S. C t . 6 17 , 8 8 L
. E d. 2d 598 ( 1986) ( unl aw f ul
ex clus ion o f A fri ca n -A m erican s from g ran d jury is no t subject t o h arm less erro r an alys is)
. ¶2 4. W her e, as her e, a cl ear , unam bi guous vi ol at i on of a de f e nd a nt ’ s f

unda m ent al
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtaf

f ect s the s tructur e of

the tr i al i t sel f, t hi s C our tw i l l notexcus e that vi ol at i on beca us e of

the def endant ’ s i nabi l i ty or f

ai l ur e t o dem ons tr at e pr ej udi ce. W er e s uch a demonstr at i on r equi r ed, how w oul d any d efe ndanti n M cG ee’ s pos i t i on m eets uch a b u rde n ? T h e a rgu m en t th at ex clud ing on e m ale i s pe rm issi b le w h ere othe r m en on th e jury
ca n rep rese n t th e “ m ale p o int of v iew ” is an athe m a to th e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt ’s gui di ng pr i nci pl e i n J

. E. B. t hatgenderst er eotypes and gene r al i zat i ons have no pl ace i n the
c o u rtro o m . 5 1 1 U .S
. a t 14 0
. A d e fe n d a n t ca n n o t b e c a lled u p o n to p in p o in t o r d e m o n stra te
w h a t p re ju d ice h e s u ffe re d in th e o u tco m e o f h is tria l w h e n th e fra m e w o rk o f th e trial itse lf i s compromi s ed. ¶2 5
. T h is C o u rth as h e ld “ th a t a fin d in g o f p lain e rro r is n e ce ssary w h en a p arty’s f undament al r i ght s ar e af f ect ed. ” W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 794 So. 2d 181, 188 (M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng G ru b b v. S ta te , 584 So. 2d 786, 789 ( M i s s . 1991) )
. T he U ni t ed S t at es Supr eme C our thas al s o cat egor i zed as pl ai n err or“thos e err or s that‘ s er i ous l y af f ectthe f ai rnes s , i nt egr i ty or publ i c r eput at i on of

j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ’ ” U nite d State s v. Y

oung , 470 U
. S. 1, 15, 10 5 S. C t . 1038, 84 L
. E d. 2d 1 ( 1985) ( quot i ng U nited States v. A t

kinson , 297 U
. S. 157, 160, 56 S . C t. 39 1 , 8 0 L . E d . 5 5 5 (1 9 3 6 )). R e g a rd les s o f w h e th e r a d e fe n d a n t ca n d e m o n stra te p r e j u d i c e , we wi l l n o te x c u s e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n wh e n i ti n f e c t s o u rj u d i c i a l s y s t e m:

### Inde ed, thep rosecutor in t his ca sewas com

ple te ly unaware that

gende r 5 

### discrimin ationwas unco nstitution al. 14 D i s cr i m i nat i on i n j ury s el ect i on, w hetherba s ed on r ace oron gender , caus es h arm to the li ti g an ts, the c o m m u n ity , an d the in d iv id u al j u rors w h o are w ro n g fu lly e x c lu d e d fro m p a rticip a tio n in the jud icia l pr o c e ss . T h e lit ig a n ts are h arm ed b y the risk th at th e p rejud ice tha t m o ti v ated th e d iscri m inato ry s e le c tio n o f t h e ju ry w ill in fe c t th e e n tir e p ro c e e d in g s . See E dm ons on , 500 U
. S. at628 ( di s cr i m i nat i on i n t he courtr oom ‘ r ai s es s er i ous ques t i ons as t o the f ai rnes s of

the pr ocee di ngs c onduct ed ther e. ”)
. The comm uni ty i s harm ed by the St at e’ s part i ci pat i on i n the perpetuat i on of i nvi di ous group s t er eotypes and the i nevi t abl e l os s of

conf i dence i n ourj udi ci al s ys t em t hatst at e- s anct i oned dis cri m i nati on i n the cou rtroom eng end ers . J . E. B. , 511 U
. S. at140. ¶26. T her e mustbe cl earand ce r t ai n cons equenc es t o the bl at antvi ol at i on of a f undament al
cons t i tut i onal r i ght
. T o hol d otherw i s e i s t o f r ee the St at e t o c om m i tthos e vi ol at i ons s o l ong
a s th e c a se a g a in st th e d e fe n d a n t is stro n g . T h is C o u rt m u st re fu se to e m a sc u late f undament al r i ght s by expandi ng exce pt i ons t o cr eat e a di s i ncent i ve f orthe pr ot ect i on of thos e r i ght s . T he er os i on of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s i nevi t abl y l eads t o i gnor ance by s om e that thos e r i ght s even e xi s t . A s the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tha s e xpl ai ned, “ [ t ] he mess age 5 itsen d s to a ll tho se in the co u rtroo m , an d all tho se w h o m ay lat er learn o f th e d iscri m inato ry act , i s t hatcert ai n i ndi vi dual s , f orno r eas on otherthan gende r , ar e pr es um ed unqual i f i ed by
s ta te a c to rs to d e c id e im p o rt a n t q u e s tio n s u p o n w h ic h re a s o n a b le p e rs o n s c o u ld d is a g re e .” I d. at141. T hi s C our tw i l l notperm i ts uch a mes s age t o be br oadcastto t he ci t i zens of M iss iss ip p i. ¶27. Fi nal l y, Jur orW as hi ngt on had a const i tut i onal ri ghtnotbe exc l uded f r om j ury s ervi ce
s i m pl y beca us e of

h i s gen der. A s s t at ed above , “i ndi vi dual j ur or s themsel ves have a r i ght

### 15

t o nondi s cr i m i nat ory j ury s el ect i on pr ocedur es . ” I d. at 14 0 -41
. H o w ev er, ev en if w e w ere to req u ir e Ju ror W ash ing ton t o de m o n str ate p rejud ice i n th is ca se, th e p rejud ice i s q u ite obvi ous ; he w as s enthom e. ¶2 8. For t he r eas on s s t a t e d, I c on c ur w i th the maj or i ty’ s de c i s i on t o a f f i rm the Courtof A p p e a ls’ ju d g m e n t, rev e rse th e trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t, an d re m a n d this ca se fo r a n e w trial, fr ee of vi olat i on of the co nst i tuti on al ri gh t s of the d efendan tand the p rospect i ve jur ors. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND COB B, P . J J . , DI AZ , CARL S ON AND RANDOL P H, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.