The defendant appealed his conviction to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. That court cited "Swain v. Alabama", and held that a defendant claiming lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the panel of prospective jurors. That is, the defendant had to show that not just in his case, but as a process, juries in his community did not represent a cross section of that community. Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted "certiorari" to decide whether petitioner was tried "in violation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the defendant an impartial jury and a jury composed of persons representing a fair cross section of the community."
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell, the Supreme Court ruled in Batson's favor. The court overruled "Swain v. Alabama" by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must meet to make a "prima facie" case of purposeful discrimination. In "Swain", the Court had recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause", but that the defendant had the burden of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. In "Batson" the court ruled that the defendant could make a "prima facie" case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record only in his own case. The Court explained:
The Court also held that:
Justice Marshall, concurring with the majority, called the decision "historic" but added: "The decision today will not end the racial discrimination that peremptories inject into the jury-selection process. That goal can be accomplished only by eliminating peremptory challenges entirely."
In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger argued that the court's decision in "Batson" "sets aside the peremptory challenge, a procedure which has been part of the common law for many centuries and part of our jury system for nearly 200 years". He believed the majority was replacing peremptory challenges with something very similar to challenge for cause, but was unclear in explaining the standard to be applied. "I am at a loss to discern the governing principles here," he wrote. "I join my colleagues in wishing the nation's judges well as they struggle to grasp how to implement today's holding."
Justice Rehnquist wrote that the majority misapplied equal protection doctrine: "In my view, there is simply nothing 'unequal' about the state using its peremptory challenges to strike blacks from the jury in cases involving black defendants, so long as such challenges are also used to exclude whites in cases involving white defendants, Hispanics in cases involving Hispanic defendants, Asians in cases involving Asian defendants, and so on."
Whether the principles of "Batson" applied retroactively to anyone convicted previously by juries whose racial composition was influenced by peremptory challenges not consistent with this opinion was for a time uncertain. In "Allen v. Hardy" (1986), the Court held that it did not apply retroactively to collateral review of final convictions. In "Griffith v. Kentucky" (1987), it decided it would apply it in cases on direct review.
The term "Batson challenge" describes an objection to opposing counsel's use of a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror from the jury pool based on criteria the courts have found disqualifying, as race was the sole rationale for exclusion in "Batson".
In some cases, parties have appealed a verdict or judgment and asked it be made invalid because one or more peremptory challenges excluded a recognizable group from the jury. Though the "Batson" decision addressed jury selection in criminal trials, in 1991 the Supreme Court later extended the same rule to civil trials in "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company". In 1994, in "J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B."., the Court held that peremptory challenges based on sex alone violated the standard established in "Batson" as well.
Polearm
Polearms were long sticks that had a blade on the side. They were similar to an axe, but much longer. They were also used by women in ancient Japan.
Citizenship in the United States
Citizenship in the United States means being a citizen of the United States. A person who has citizenship is called a citizen. Citizenship does not just mean that a person lives in the United States. United States citizenship gives people many rights, many protections, and also some duties.
There are two ways that people can become citizens of the United States.
The first is called "birthright citizenship." Anybody who is born in the United States automatically becomes a United States citizen.
The second is called "naturalization." This is for people who were born outside the United States. A person becomes a "naturalized citizen" if they apply for citizenship and are approved.
Once a person is a naturalized citizen, they have all of the same rights, protections, and duties as a person who was born in the United States.
Being a United States citizen gives a person many rights. Here is a list of some of these rights.
Citizenship also comes with duties. Here are some of those duties.
Americans are permitted to formally abandon their citizenship, even if they do not possess another citizenship and become stateless as a result. Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was an American citizen because he was born there. He renounced his American citizenship in 2016. 5411 other Americans renounced their citizenship in the same year.
Gates v. Collier
Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974), was a landmark case decided by a United States federal court called the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case had to do with the rights of prisoners at Mississippi State Penitentiary (usually called "Parchman").
"Gates v. Collier" is a very important case for prisoners' rights. It was the first case to rule that many types of physical punishment against prisoners are cruel and unusual punishment, and are against the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was also the first time that the Supreme Court started supervising how the country's prisons were being run.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution says that the state cannot give cruel and unusual punishments to anyone.
Parchman opened in 1903. At the prison, there was a program called the "trusty system." This was a system where some prisoners had more rights and freedoms than others. They also had power over the other inmates.
The Governor of Mississippi, James K. Vardaman, said the prison was run “like an efficient slave plantation.” Trusties had guns and were allowed to shoot at prisoners who stepped out of line. Other punishments were painful and severe. The prison also segregated (separated) black and white prisoners.
For years, there were protests over civil rights abuses at Parchman. Eventually, civil rights lawyer Roy Haber began to collect evidence of the abuse. With Haber as their lawyer, four prisoners filed a lawsuit in federal court, saying that conditions at the prison were cruel and unusual. They said that prison trusties and guards punished and tortured prisoners in ways that were painful and humiliating on purpose.
The prisoners' lawsuit, "Gates v. Collier", 349 F. Supp. 881 (1972), went first to a federal court called the United States District Court N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division. This court ruled strongly in favor of the prisoners. The court found that Parchman's trusties and guards gave many cruel and unusual punishments, including: