Title: ANTHONY PELLEGRINO V AMPCO SYSTEMS PARKING
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 137111
State: Michigan
Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court
Date: June 28, 2010

FILED JUNE 28, 2010 
 
 
ANTHONY PELLEGRINO, Individually 
and as Personal Representative of the Estate 
of SHIRLEY ANN PELLEGRINO, 
 
 
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
 
 
v 
No. 137111 
 
AMPCO SYSTEM PARKING, 
 
 
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH  
 
MARKMAN, J.  
 
This case raises the question whether, absent a finding that a peremptory challenge 
is barred by Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; 106 S Ct 1712; 90 L Ed 2d 69 (1986), 
because it is motivated by race, a trial court may nevertheless deny a party the use of a 
peremptory challenge on the basis of the court’s desire to attain a racially proportionate 
jury.  We hold that such a denial violates the rule of Batson that jurors must be 
“indifferently chosen” and is therefore in violation of both the equal protection 
guarantees of the federal and state constitutions, US Const, Am XIV, § 1 and Const 1963 
art 1, § 2, and MCR 2.511(F)(2).  Decisions to include, and to exclude, particular jurors 
must be undertaken without consideration of race.  Accordingly, we reverse the contrary 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 
Opinion 
 
Chief Justice: 
Marilyn Kelly 
 
 
Justices: 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Stephen J. Markman 
Diane M. Hathaway 
 
 
 
2 
 
judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages 
only. 
I.  FACTS AND HISTORY 
On April 7, 2003, Anthony Pellegrino and his wife, Shirley, were riding in an 
airport shuttle van operated by defendant, Ampco System Parking, when the van swerved 
on ice and hit a concrete barrier.  Shirley was killed, and Anthony sustained serious 
injuries.  As personal representative of Shirley’s estate and individually on his own 
behalf, Anthony filed a third-party no-fault action against defendant, which conceded 
liability, leaving for trial only the question of damages.   
Before voir dire, the trial court instructed the attorneys that “it would be a goal of 
[the court] to have a jury that represented the racial composition of this county.”  
Subsequently at voir dire, defense counsel sought to peremptorily excuse prospective 
juror Sylvia Greene, an African-American woman, and plaintiffs’ counsel raised an 
objection based on Batson, alleging that defense counsel had already peremptorily 
challenged two prospective jurors on the basis of race.  In response, defense counsel 
argued that he wanted to excuse Greene because she had been widowed two times and 
was in the process of grieving over the death of her mother.  Without making any finding 
about whether plaintiffs’ counsel had established grounds for denying the peremptory 
challenge, the trial court denied it, and Greene remained on the jury.   
 
3 
 
After invoking MCR 2.511(F),1
Defense counsel again objected to the court’s denial of his peremptory challenge 
in a posttrial motion and requested a new trial.  He argued that the trial court had failed to 
follow Batson procedures, stating that, although it is an “emulative approach” to want to 
“equalize[e] jurors because of the Wayne County problems of amassing enough minority 
jurors,” it is “not the law.”  Defense counsel also asserted that MCR 2.511(F)(2) 
superseded the court’s own view of its obligations in the selection of juries.   
 defense counsel asserted that he had supplied a 
legitimate nonracial rationale for his peremptory challenges and argued that plaintiffs’ 
Batson issue was a “red herring” and unsupported.  He then advised the trial court that he 
intended to file a motion either to remove Greene or for a mistrial, to which the trial court 
responded:  “We have a jury of eight women.  Three are African-American.  In my view, 
it adequately represents the community from which this case arises.”  In a unanimous 
verdict, the six jurors who deliberated eventually awarded $14.9 million to plaintiffs.   
                                              
1 MCR 2.511(F) forbids taking race into account during voir dire for the purpose 
of achieving what the court believes to be a balanced, proportionate, or representative 
jury and provides:  
(1) No person shall be subjected to discrimination during voir dire 
on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. 
(2) Discrimination during voir dire on the basis of race, color, 
religion, national origin, or sex for the purpose of achieving what the court 
believes to be a balanced, proportionate, or representative jury in terms of 
these characteristics shall not constitute an excuse or justification for a 
violation of this subsection. 
MCR 2.511(F) became effective January 1, 2006, and therefore applied in the instant 
trial. 
 
4 
 
In denying the motion, the trial court rejected the notion that an objection based on 
Batson could only be sustained on a showing of racial considerations, asserting that “the 
federal threshold is dreadful and it renders nugatory the Batson challenge.”  After 
indicating further that it did not think defense counsel was “racist” or should be accused 
of “racism,” the trial court stated: 
. . . I told you on the record, and this may get me into hot water with 
[the] Appeals Court, I won’t find it.  I will not do that.   
*   *   * 
. . . I have six African American children of my own.  I am not going 
to indulge in the race baiting that that kind of an opinion or that kind of 
finding would require of me.   
Defense counsel then interjected that the whole point of peremptory challenges is to 
excuse prospective jurors even though they do not meet the legal disqualification 
standards of MCR 2.511(D), and the trial court continued: 
Well I guess I’m [in] sufficient hot water with the appellate courts to 
say I’m not going to . . . indulge in . . . race baiting . . . .  Now if the 
Supreme Court rules that way, I suspect they would not but if they do, then 
I’ll have to decide whether I can function as a judge any longer.   
Finally, the trial court stated that it understood that defense counsel was 
focusing upon the intent of the Batson challenge.  However, there are 
competing interests.  There is no other county in the state of Michigan with 
as diverse racial composition as Wayne County. . . .   
*   *   * 
. . . I am until either removed from the bench by the disciplinary 
committee or ordered to have a new trial, I am going to seek to have this 
proportional representation on the juries that hear cases in this court.  I 
can’t be clearer.  I’m going to do it until I’m ordered not to do it and then 
when I’m ordered not to do it, then I’ll have to decide what’s next for me.  
 
 
5 
 
 
Defendant appealed in the Court of Appeals, raising a host of issues, including the 
trial court’s denial of its peremptory challenge, and that Court affirmed in a split decision.  
Pellegrino v Ampco Sys Parking, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of 
Appeals, issued May 27, 2008 (Docket No. 274743).  The majority concluded that 
although the trial court had not followed Batson procedures, no constitutional error 
occurred because such an error occurs only when a prospective juror is excused on the 
basis of race, rather than included on that basis.  Thus, the majority opined, the trial court 
had merely denied defendant the use of a single peremptory challenge, which was subject 
to a harmless-error analysis.  The majority then concluded that the error was, in fact, 
harmless because the only issue at trial had been damages and the verdict had been 
unanimous.  Finally, the majority asserted that MCR 2.511(F)(2) had not been violated:   
To the extent that the trial court desired a racially balanced jury, 
such a desire does not run afoul of MCR 2.511(F)(2).  MCR 2.115(F)(2) 
[sic] prohibits “[d]iscrimination during voir dire on the basis of race[,]” and 
we cannot conceive how the trial court’s desire to have a racially balanced 
jury could possibly be characterized as “discrimination” under MCR 
2.115(F)(2) [sic].  [Id. at 9.] 
Judge O’CONNELL, in partial dissent, stated:  
The trial court’s refusal to follow the law was not confined to 
Batson.  During jury selection, defendant’s counsel also brought to the trial 
court's attention a Michigan Supreme Court order regarding what ultimately 
became MCR 2.511(F).  Our Supreme Court had already stated in [People 
v] Knight, [473 Mich 324; 701 NW2d 715 (2005)], that “the right to a fair 
and impartial jury does not entail ensuring any particular racial composition 
of the jury.”3  Id. at 349.  The footnote to the statement specifically notes 
that a “proposed court rule would expressly prohibit the use of peremptory 
challenges to achieve a racially proportionate jury” and cites the exact 
language now found in MCR 2.511(F).  Id. at 349, n 17.  The trial judge not 
only admitted that he told counsel before jury selection that he “was 
interested and it would be a goal of [his] to have a jury that represented the 
 
6 
 
racial composition of this county,” but also stated that he would refuse to 
adhere to MCR 2.511 unless ordered to do so: 
“I am until either removed from the bench by the disciplinary 
committee or ordered to have a new trial, I am going to seek to have this 
proportional representation on the juries that hear cases in this court. I can’t 
be clearer.  I’m going to do it until I’m ordered not to do it and then when 
I’m ordered not to do it, then I’ll have to decide what’s next for me.” 
For a trial judge to state on the record that he refuses to follow the 
law and will continue to do so unless removed from office does more than 
imply prejudice in the proceedings, it admits them.  I can think of no 
ground for reversal more clear than that.   
 
3 This statement is consistent with the United States Supreme Court's ruling 
that “[r]ace cannot be a proxy for determining juror bias or competence.”  
Powers v Ohio, 499 US 400, 410; 111 S Ct 1364; 113 L Ed 2d 411 (1991).  
Decisions about jurors may not be made based on race, good intentions 
notwithstanding. 
 
[Id. at 5-6 (O’CONNELL, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).] 
Defendant appealed, and this Court granted leave to appeal, “limited to the issue whether 
the defendant is entitled to a new trial based on a violation of MCR 2.511(F)(2).”  483 
Mich 999 (2009).   
II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
We review constitutional questions de novo.  Sidun v Wayne Co Treasurer, 481 
Mich 503, 508; 751 NW2d 453 (2008).  We also review lower courts’ interpretations and 
applications of court rules de novo.  Henry v Dow Chem Co, 484 Mich 483, 495; 772 
NW2d 301 (2009).   
III.  BATSON v KENTUCKY  
In a civil trial, “[e]ach party may peremptorily challenge three jurors.”  MCR 
2.511(E)(2).  Before 1986, a party was free to peremptorily remove a prospective juror 
 
7 
 
for any reason.  But in Batson, 476 US at 89, 96-98, the United States Supreme Court 
held that a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge to strike a prospective juror may not be 
exercised on the basis of race because such an action violates the Equal Protection Clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment.2  Later that year, the Court expanded Batson to civil 
cases.  Edmonson v Leesville Concrete Co, Inc, 500 US 614; 111 S Ct 2077; 114 L Ed 2d 
660 (1991).3
The United States Supreme Court has reinforced Batson on several occasions.  In 
1991, the Court held that a defendant could raise a Batson issue even if the excused juror 
was not the same race as the defendant.  Powers v Ohio, 499 US 400, 415; 111 S Ct 
1364; 113 L Ed 2d 411 (1991).
   
4
                                              
2 Batson established a three-step process for determining whether a challenger has 
improperly exercised peremptory challenges.  First, the opponent of the challenge must 
make a prima facie showing of discrimination based on race. Id. at 94-97.  Once the 
prima facie showing is made, the burden then shifts to the party attempting to strike the 
prospective juror to come forward with a neutral explanation for the challenge.  Id. at 97.  
Finally, the trial court must decide whether the opponent of the challenge has proved 
purposeful discrimination.  Id. at 98.  If so, the peremptory challenge will not be allowed.  
This Court has mandated that trial courts “meticulously follow Batson’s three-step test” 
and strongly urged them “to clearly articulate their findings and conclusions on the 
record.”  People v Knight, 473 Mich 324, 339; 701 NW2d 715 (2005).   
  Then, in Georgia v McCollum, 505 US 42, 59; 112 S Ct 
3 In Edmonson, 500 US at 630, the Court stated:  
 
Racial discrimination has no place in the courtroom, whether the 
proceeding is civil or criminal. . . . 
[I]f race stereotypes are the price for acceptance of a jury panel as 
fair, the price is too high to meet the standard of the Constitution. 
 
4 “[R]ace neutrality in jury selection [is] a visible, and inevitable, measure of the 
judicial system’s own commitment to the commands of the Constitution.  The courts are 
 
 
8 
 
2348; 120 L Ed 2d 33 (1992), the Court extended Batson to peremptory challenges by 
criminal defendants.  Finally, in 1994, the Court expanded Batson to peremptory 
challenges on the basis of gender.  J E B v Alabama, 511 US 127, 146; 114 S Ct 1419; 
128 L Ed 2d 89 (1994).   
 
This Court has also issued opinions addressing Batson, as well as enacting MCR 
2.511 (F).  In People v Bell, 473 Mich 275; 702 NW2d 128 (2005),5
                                              
under an affirmative duty to enforce the strong statutory and constitutional policies 
embodied in that prohibition.”  Powers, 499 US at 416.  
 the trial court denied 
defense counsel’s efforts to peremptorily strike two white males after defense counsel 
had already struck several other white males.  In response to the prosecutor’s claim that 
there was an inference of discrimination in such challenges, defense counsel argued: 
“‘[T]he number of white males on that panel still exceeds the number of the minorities on 
that panel.  Why don’t you talk about the whole racial composition of that panel?  
There’s still a vast majority of white members on that panel than . . . black members on 
that panel.’”  Id. at 289.  This Court concluded that the trial court had properly denied 
defense counsel’s peremptory challenges and added that “[j]ust as a challenger may not 
exclude a prospective juror on the basis of race, it is equally improper for a challenger to 
engineer the composition of a jury to reflect the race of the defendant.”  Id. at 290. 
 
5 Bell was a divided case producing five opinions.  Only parts I through III of the 
lead opinion in Bell garnered majority support.  Justice WEAVER concurred, then Chief 
Justice TAYLOR dissented in part and concurred in part, then Justice KELLY dissented, 
and Justice CAVANAGH also separately dissented.  
 
9 
 
In People v Knight, 473 Mich 324; 701 NW2d 715 (2005), decided the same day, 
defense counsel objected that the prosecutor was using peremptory challenges to exclude 
African-Americans from the jury.  After hearing the prosecutor’s reasons for his 
challenges, the trial court said:  
“[T]wo or three minority jurors [are] left on this panel.  So I think 
we are getting close to a serious issue here.” 
*   *   * 
“. . . I think we’re getting close to a sensitive issue here on 
[prospective jurors] Jones and Johnson. . . .”   
*   *   * 
“With the panel we ended up with, I think that any Batson problems 
that may have been there have been cured.”  [Id. at 331-334 (emphasis 
deleted).] 
On appeal in this Court, in the course of explaining that the trial court had never found a 
Batson violation, we stated: 
[T]he record is susceptible to the fair inference that the trial judge 
acted to preserve the presence of minority jurors on the panel, knowing that 
the jury pool, as a matter of chance, was largely Caucasian.  Protecting a 
defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury does not entail ensuring any 
particular racial composition of the jury. . . .   
*   *   * 
[T]he [judge’s] comments demonstrate that her true motivation was 
to ensure some modicum of racial balance in the jury panel.  Use of 
peremptory challenges, however, to ensure racial proportionality in the jury 
is prohibited by Batson and will be prohibited by proposed MCR 
6.412(F)[6
                                              
6 The proposed court rule was eventually incorporated as MCR 2.511(F) rather 
than MCR 6.412(F).  
] if adopted. 
 
10 
 
*   *   * 
The trial judge failed to recognize that a defendant is not entitled to a 
jury of a particular racial composition as long as no racial group is 
systematically and intentionally excluded.  [Id. at 348-351.  
Justice CAVANAGH, joined by then Justice KELLY and then Chief Justice TAYLOR, 
concurred in part and dissented in part.  Although Justice CAVANAGH concluded that the 
trial court had found a Batson violation, as relevant here, he stated: “I tend to agree with 
the majority and suspect that some of the trial court's statements arguably stemmed from 
its desire to ensure a racially mixed jury and that such a desire is prohibited by Batson 
and its progeny.”  Id. at 361 (CAVANAGH, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).  
In the end, all seven justices agreed that Batson prohibited a trial court from acting to 
preserve the presence of minority jurors on a jury panel because of a desire to ensure a 
racially mixed jury.  
IV.  APPLICATION 
Plaintiffs argue that the trial court’s refusal to allow defendant to exercise a 
peremptory challenge of prospective juror Greene was consistent with the constitution 
and court rules because the trial court was merely seeking to ensure that that the jury 
represented a “fair cross-section of the community.”  We reject this argument because the 
trial court’s actions violated the race-neutral requirements of both the constitution and 
MCR 2.511(F)(2).  Greene’s retention on the jury was predicated on her race, as well as 
the races of other jurors; each of these racial considerations was paramount in the 
decision of the trial court to reject defendant’s peremptory challenge.  As MCR 
2.511(F)(2) makes explicit, a court’s desire to achieve a “balanced, proportionate, or 
 
11 
 
representative jury” does not justify taking race into consideration in selecting a jury.  
Notwithstanding this express prohibition, the trial court premised its jury-selection 
decisions on its determination to secure “proportional representation” based on the racial 
composition of the county in which the trial occurred.  In denying defendant’s 
peremptory challenge, the court expressly took Greene’s race into account and expressly 
evaluated her race in light of the race of every other juror on the panel.  It is hard to 
conceive of a more flagrant and unambiguous violation of the court rule.   
Moreover, the prohibition found in MCR 2.511(F)(2) is altogether consistent with, 
and indeed premised on, our federal and state constitutions,7 as well as United States 
Supreme Court and Michigan Supreme Court precedents.8
In Taylor v Louisiana, 419 US 522, 538; 95 S Ct 692; 42 L Ed 2d 690 (1975), the 
United States Supreme Court held that defendants are not entitled to a jury of any 
particular composition: “[I]n holding that petit [trial] juries must be drawn from a source 
  These demonstrate that a 
purpose or motive of attaining a racially balanced jury does not provide the trial court 
with the authority to deprive a party of a proper peremptory challenge. 
                                              
7 US Const, Am XIV, § 1 provides: “[N]or shall any State . . . deny to any 
person . . . the equal protection of the laws.”  Indeed, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, unlike its 
federal counterpart contained in the Fourteenth Amendment, explicitly prohibits 
discrimination on the basis of race: “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the 
laws . . . because of . . . race . . . .”   
8 Justices CAVANAGH, KELLY, and WEAVER opposed the adoption of MCR 
2.511(F) because, among other reasons, the rule, in their view, was “unnecessary” and 
added “no substantive value to the case law already in existence.”  474 Mich ccxli, ccxliii 
(KELLY, J., dissenting).  No justice questioned the consistency of the court rule with the 
federal or state constitutions or with federal or state caselaw.  
 
12 
 
fairly representative of the community we impose no requirement that petit juries actually 
chosen must mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the 
population.”9  And in Lockhart v McCree, 476 US 162, 173; 106 S Ct 1758; 90 L Ed 2d 
137 (1986), the United States Supreme Court observed: “We have never invoked the fair-
cross-section principle to invalidate the use of either for-cause or peremptory challenges 
to prospective jurors, or to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels or venires, to 
reflect the composition of the community at large.”10
                                              
9 As earlier explained in Batson, 476 US at 86 n 6: “[I]t would be impossible to 
apply a concept of proportional representation to the petit jury in view of the 
heterogeneous nature of our society.”  See also United States v Jackman, 46 F3d 1240, 
1244 (CA 2, 1995), which held that the Sixth Amendment “guarantees the opportunity 
for a representative jury venire, not a representative venire itself.”  (Second emphasis 
added.)  
  Subsequently, in Holland v Illinois, 
493 US 474, 480; 110 S Ct 803; 107 L Ed 2d 905 (1990), the Court held that the fair-
cross-section requirement cannot be interpreted as prohibiting peremptory challenges, 
stating: “[The] Sixth Amendment requirement of a fair cross section [of the community] 
on the venire is a means of assuring, not a representative jury (which the Constitution 
does not demand), but an impartial one (which it does).” 
10 See United States v Nelson, 277 F3d 164, 172 (CA 2, 2002), in which the trial 
court replaced an excused black juror with another black juror, rather than the white first 
alternate, and at the same time replaced another empanelled white juror with a religious-
minority white juror, also selected out of order from the list of alternates.  The court 
justified its actions by reference to a desire for a racially and religiously balanced jury.  
Id.  In response, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated: 
“[A]lthough the motives behind the district courts race- and religion-based jury selection 
procedures were undoubtedly meant to be tolerant and inclusive rather than bigoted and 
exclusionary, that fact cannot justify the district court’s race-conscious actions.”  Id. at 
207. 
 
13 
 
Thus, given that the trial court did not determine that defendant’s peremptory 
challenge was racially motivated, the court’s stated desire to have the racial composition 
of the jury be “representative of the community” did not justify or authorize the court’s 
denial of that challenge.  
 
Even more fundamentally, the trial court’s denial of defendant’s peremptory 
challenge violated the constitutional principles set forth in Batson: 
[T]he defendant does have the right to be tried by a jury whose 
members are selected pursuant to non-discriminatory criteria. . . .   
. . . Those on the venire must be “indifferently chosen” to secure the 
defendant's right under the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .   
*   *   * 
The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that 
inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire 
community.  [Batson, 476 US at 85-87.]  
The trial court’s refusal to allow defendant to strike prospective juror Greene without 
finding any Batson violation led to at least one member of the jury having been selected, 
not pursuant to nondiscriminatory criteria, but precisely on the basis of race.  Greene’s 
presence on the jury was thus the result not of being “indifferently chosen,” as required 
by Batson, but of having been chosen specifically on the basis of race.  As asserted in 
Batson, this inflicts harm on defendant, on the prospective juror who was excluded 
because of Greene’s retention, and indeed on the “entire community.”  The trial court’s 
process transformed the jury from a group of mere citizens into a group in which a 
person’s racial background became defining, and it transformed the selection process 
from one that was neutral in terms of race into one that was predicated on race.  While 
 
14 
 
this may be the process preferred by the trial court, it is not the process set forth by the 
federal or state constitutions or by federal or state law.  As stated in Powers, 499 US at 
415: “The Fourteenth Amendment’s mandate that race discrimination be eliminated from 
all official acts and proceedings of the State is most compelling in the judicial system.”  
Quite simply, in the absence of a Batson violation, the trial court had no right to take 
Greene’s or any other prospective juror’s race into account in denying defendant’s 
peremptory challenge.  When it did so, the selection of the jury ceased to be indifferent to 
race, but instead became preoccupied with race.  
 
The Court of Appeals concluded that no Batson error occurred because a Batson 
error occurs only when a prospective juror is actually dismissed on account of race.  We 
respectfully disagree.  While Batson violations have typically involved the exclusion of a 
prospective juror on the basis of race, the constitutional principles articulated in Batson 
are not so limited.  Batson and its progeny generally speak in terms of the prohibition of 
“discrimination” involving prospective jurors, not merely the exclusion of prospective 
jurors on the basis of race.  See, e.g., Powers, 499 US at 404 (“Although a defendant has 
no right to a ‘petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of [the defendant’s] own 
race,’ he or she does have the right to be tried by a jury whose members are selected by 
nondiscriminatory criteria.”) (citation omitted).  Furthermore, in stressing that no person 
should intentionally be excluded on account of race, these cases support the conclusion 
that the purposeful inclusion of a particular juror on account of race-- which by its logic 
necessarily implies the exclusion of another individual in the “zero sum” process that 
characterizes jury selection-- also offends the constitution.  See, e.g., Knight, 473 Mich at 
 
15 
 
349 (“The goal of Batson and its progeny is to promote racial neutrality in the selection 
of a jury and to avoid the systematic and intentional exclusion of any racial group.”) 
(emphasis added).   
 
The United States Supreme Court has effectively adopted a “zero tolerance” 
approach toward racial considerations affecting the choosing of a jury.  This approach is 
implicated when a prospective juror has been excluded on account of race, and it is 
similarly violated when a proper peremptory challenge has been denied because of the 
prospective juror’s race or the races of the other prospective jurors.  See, e.g., Cassell v 
Texas, 339 US 282, 287; 70 S Ct 629; 94 L Ed 839 (1950), in which the lead opinion 
stated: “Proportional racial limitation is therefore forbidden.  An accused is entitled to 
have charges against him considered by a jury in the selection of which there has been 
neither inclusion nor exclusion because of race.”  (Emphasis added.)  And, as the lead 
opinion stated in Bell, “it is . . . improper . . . to engineer the composition of a jury to 
reflect the race” of a party.  Bell, 473 Mich at 290 (opinion by CORRIGAN, J.). 
 
As previously indicated, all seven justices of this Court agreed in Knight that 
Batson prohibits a trial court from acting to preserve the presence of minority jurors on a 
jury panel because of a desire to ensure a racially balanced jury.  Here, however, the trial 
court expressly acknowledged that it was attempting to engineer the composition of the 
jury to reflect the “diverse racial composition” of the community.  The trial court was not 
free to do this under the law and constitution and, by doing so, violated the constitutional 
right of defendant to a jury that, with regard to race, had been “indifferently chosen.”   
 
16 
 
 
In sum, we find that the wrongful inclusion of a juror on account of race should be 
treated the same as the wrongful exclusion of a prospective juror on account of race.  
Each situation violates the constitutional command that jurors be selected pursuant to 
criteria that do not take race into account, each deprives a defendant of a jury that has 
been “indifferently chosen” in terms of race, and each involves the exercise of judicial 
power in support of a process in which race becomes dispositive in terms of who can 
serve on a jury.  Finally, each situation violates the plain language of MCR 2.511(F)(2).   
V.  REMEDY 
The Court of Appeals majority concluded, and plaintiffs argue, that any error here 
was harmless.  We again respectfully disagree.  In Batson, 476 US at 86-87, the Court 
held, without determining that the jury as composed was biased in any way, that the 
unlawful exclusion of a prospective juror on the basis of race requires reversal because it 
“violates a defendant's right to equal protection,” “unconstitutionally discriminate[s] 
against the excluded juror,” and “undermine[s] public confidence in the fairness of our 
system of justice.”  The Court likewise reversed convictions or judgments outright, 
without assessing the harmlessness of the Batson violations, in Powers, 499 US at 416; 
Edmonson, 500 US at 631; and J E B, 511 US at 146.  Here, the trial court’s efforts to 
balance the composition of a jury violated Batson because these efforts entailed taking 
race into account-- including, and necessarily excluding, with regard to jury duty, persons 
 
17 
 
on the basis of their pigmentation.11  We believe that the automatic reversal rule of 
Batson should also apply when there has been an unlawful inclusion of a juror as the 
result of a Batson violation by the trial court.12  Such a rule vindicates the equal 
protection guarantees of the United States Constitution, Am XIV, § 1 and Const 1963, art 
1, § 2, while ensuring that jury selection is not infected in any way by racial 
considerations.13
Plaintiffs also argue that, even if the trial court erred by denying defendant’s 
peremptory challenge, any error was not of a federal constitutional dimension, citing 
   
                                              
11 MCR 2.511(E)(1) states: “A juror peremptorily challenged is excused without 
cause.”  (Emphasis added.)  The phrase “is excused” is mandatory language, not 
discretionary or permissive language.  Thus, absent a Batson violation, a trial court has 
no discretion to deny a party the exercise of one of its peremptory challenges and thereby 
to deny that party the right to have seated on his or her jury the person who stands next in 
the jury queue.   
12 Bell discussed whether the improper denial of a peremptory challenge is subject 
to harmless-error analysis.  The lead opinion stated in dictum that the improper denial of 
a peremptory challenge on a basis other than race is subject to that analysis.  Bell, 473 
Mich at 293 (opinion by CORRIGAN, J.).  Justice KELLY argued in her dissent that 
automatic reversal should occur for the wrongful denial of a peremptory challenge, even 
if it does not constitute a Batson error.  Id. at 312-313 (KELLY, J., dissenting).  Justice 
CAVANAGH dissented on similar grounds.  Id. at 322 (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting).  This 
debate need not be further addressed today because here the wrongful denial was, in fact, 
based on race.  See, however, Rivera v Illinois, 556 US ___; 129 S Ct 1446, 1454-1456; 
173 L Ed 2d 320 (2009) (unanimously rejecting an automatic-reversal rule where a trial 
court made a “one-time, good-faith” error “without more” in disallowing a peremptory 
challenge, but noting that “[s]tates are free to decide, as a matter of state law, [whether] a 
trial court’s mistaken denial of a peremptory challenge is reversible error per se”).  
13 The dissenting justices say that they “would not reverse” because they are not 
persuaded that defendant “suffered any injustice . . . .”  As explained, however, the 
wrongful denial of a peremptory challenge on the basis of race requires automatic 
reversal.  The “injustice” suffered is being denied a legal right on account of race. 
 
18 
 
Rivera v Illinois, 556 US ___; 129 S Ct 1446; 173 L Ed 2d 320 (2009).  In Rivera,  the 
United States Supreme Court stated:  
If a defendant is tried before a qualified jury composed of 
individuals not challengeable for cause, the loss of a peremptory challenge 
due to a state court’s good-faith error is not a matter of federal 
constitutional concern.  Rather, it is a matter for the State to address under 
its own laws. . . .   
*   *   * 
[T]he mistaken denial of a state-provided peremptory challenge does 
not, without more, violate the Federal Constitution. . . . 
*   *   * 
[T]here is no suggestion here that the trial judge repeatedly or 
deliberately misapplied the law or acted in an arbitrary or irrational 
manner. . . . 
*   *   * 
 
The automatic reversal precedents Rivera cites are inapposite. One 
set of cases involves constitutional errors concerning the qualification of 
the jury or judge.  In Batson, for example, we held that the unlawful 
exclusion of jurors based on race requires reversal because it “violates a 
defendant’s right to equal protection,” “unconstitutionally discriminate[s] 
against the excluded juror,” and “undermine[s] public confidence in the 
fairness of our system of justice.” . . .   
. . . Nothing in these decisions suggests that federal law renders 
state-court judgments void whenever there is a state-law defect in a 
tribunal’s composition. Absent a federal constitutional violation, States 
retain the prerogative to decide whether such errors deprive a tribunal of its 
lawful authority and thus require automatic reversal. States are free to 
decide, as a matter of state law, that a trial court’s mistaken denial of a 
peremptory challenge is reversible error per se.  [Id. at ___; 129 S Ct at 
1453-1456.] 
Rivera is inapplicable.  In Rivera, the Court held that a state court’s “one-time, 
good-faith” error in disallowing a peremptory challenge did not “without more” require 
 
19 
 
reversal.  Id. at ___; 129 S Ct at 1454-1455.  The Court contrasted a judge’s good-faith 
mistake with one arising because the judge deliberately misapplied the law or because the 
judge had acted in an arbitrary or irrational manner.  In the case at bar, we can conclude 
neither that the trial court’s error was made in good faith nor that a good-faith error 
occurred “without more.”  Rather, the trial court deliberately refused to follow the three-
step process required under Batson because it thought that process required the court to 
“indulge” in “race baiting.”  And unlike the trial court in Rivera, which merely erred in 
good faith by finding a Batson error, the trial court in the instant case, despite never 
finding such an error in the first place, nonetheless arbitrarily proceeded as if it had.  
Furthermore, the court purposely rejected a court rule that incorporated established 
federal and state constitutional principles, and that rejection occurred in furtherance of 
the trial court’s stated determination to take race explicitly into consideration in the jury 
selection process.14
VI.  JUDICIAL OBLIGATION 
    
In this case, the trial judge (a) indicated that he was determined to attain a racially 
“representative” jury and “proportional representation” on the basis of race, 
notwithstanding explicit prohibitions in the law concerning discrimination in pursuit of a 
                                              
14 There is no question that peremptory challenges are not constitutionally 
required.  And we agree that Rivera stands for the proposition that a good-faith erroneous 
denial of a peremptory challenge without more does not implicate the federal 
constitutional right to an impartial jury.  However, what is perhaps most significant in 
Rivera is the implication that Batson errors are, in fact, “structural” and require 
“automatic” reversal.  
 
20 
 
racially representative jury or proportional representation on the basis of race; (b) 
indicated that he would not engage in the sort of “race baiting” he believed was 
compelled by the law even thought this might get him in “hot water” with the appellate 
courts; (c) indicated that he viewed as “dreadful” Batson’s threshold requirement of a 
judicial finding of racial bias motivating a peremptory challenge in the course of 
dispensing with that requirement and denying a peremptory challenge to which defendant 
was otherwise entitled by law; (d) indicated that if his view of the law did not prevail-- a 
view that he recognized as being contrary to the law of this state and that he proceeded to 
apply in this case-- he would “have to decide whether [he] can function as a judge any 
longer;” (e) indicated that he would continue to apply his own personal view of the law, 
rather than the law of this state, until “either removed from the bench by the disciplinary 
committee or ordered to have a new trial;” and (f) indicated that 
until either removed from the bench by the disciplinary committee or 
ordered to have a new trial, I am going to seek to have this proportional 
representation on the juries that hear cases in this court.  I can’t be clearer.  
I’m going to do it until I’m ordered not to do it and then when I’m ordered 
not to do it, then I’ll have to decide what’s next for me. 
These comments, and the trial judge’s attendant actions taken in conformity in 
denying defendant’s peremptory challenge, establish a basis for concluding that this is the 
unusual case in which retrial should occur before a different judge.  Moreover, we believe 
that these same comments and actions could supply a basis for the Judicial Tenure 
Commission to investigate whether judicial misconduct has occurred should it choose to 
 
21 
 
do so.15
                                              
15 While a trial court’s “erroneous decision . . . made in good faith and with due 
diligence is not judicial misconduct,” MCR 9.203(B), an intentional refusal to follow the 
law or a court rule can be judicial misconduct.  See, e.g., In re Hague, 412 Mich 532, 
547-554; 315 NW2d 524 (1982), where this Court stated:  
  Michigan has a hierarchical judicial system, and trial courts are required to 
follow applicable rules, orders, and caselaw established by appellate courts, including the 
United States Supreme Court.  This structure is essential to the orderly, uniform, and 
equal administration of justice.  A trial court is not free to disregard rules, orders, and 
caselaw with which it disagrees or to become a law unto itself.  Although a trial court is 
not required to agree with appellate rules, orders, and caselaw, as with litigants and all 
other citizens seeking to comply with the law, the court is required in good faith to follow 
. . . Judge Hague knew exactly what the superintending control 
orders forbade him to do, and did so anyway.  The record reveals that the 
respondent made no serious good-faith attempt to obey the various orders 
from superior courts, either the circuit court or the Court of Appeals. . . .   
*   *   * 
The maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of the 
judiciary required Judge Hague to avoid even the appearance of defiance of 
valid judicial orders. . . .   
*   *   * 
It seems clear beyond peradventure that, in this case, Judge Hague’s 
intentional disobedience of valid orders constitutes judicial misconduct.  
Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary can only 
be eroded by the spectacle of a judge refusing to follow the law. . . .   
*   *   * 
. . . A judge who may disagree with the appellate authority must, 
nevertheless, lay aside his own opinion of the validity of the law and 
dispose of the cases before him in accordance with the precedent. 
 
22 
 
those rules, orders, and caselaw.16  Judges, like all other persons, are required to act 
within the law.  This is the essence of the rule of law, and this is the essence of the equal 
rule of the law.  These are obligations that apply equally to this Court with regard to the 
federal decisions of the United States Supreme Court and to our Court of Appeals.17
VII.  CONCLUSION 
   
A trial court may not deny a party a proper peremptory challenge “for the purpose 
of achieving what the court believes to be a balanced, proportionate, or representative 
jury . . . .”  MCR 2.511(F)(2).  Rather, jurors must be selected pursuant to criteria that do 
not take race into consideration, with each juror being chosen indifferently with respect to 
race.  Whether for the purpose of including or excluding a particular juror, taking race 
into account violates the equal protection guarantees of both the federal and state 
                                              
16 An order entered by a court with proper jurisdiction must be obeyed-- even if 
the order is clearly incorrect.  State Bar of Mich v Cramer, 399 Mich 116, 125; 249 
NW2d 1 (1976) (“[A]n order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter 
and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper 
proceedings.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); City of Troy v Holcomb, 362 
Mich 163, 169; 106 NW2d 762 (1961) (“No citizen, having had certain activities 
enjoined, may resume them upon his individual determination that the injunction is for 
some reason no longer applicable . . . .”); Lester v Oakland Co Sheriff, 84 Mich App 689, 
697-698; 270 NW2d 493 (1978) (acknowledging that while the “order was improperly 
entered, it must still be obeyed until vacated by appropriate judicial action”). 
17 See Abela v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 603, 606; 677 NW2d 325 (2004) 
(“[S]tate courts are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court 
construing federal law . . . .”).  It is the Supreme Court’s obligation to overrule or modify 
caselaw, and until it takes such action, the Court of Appeals and all lower courts are 
bound by that authority.  Boyd v W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515, 523; 505 NW2d 544 
(1993), overruled on other grounds by Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28; 
732 NW2d 56 (2007).   
 
23 
 
constitutions, US Const, Am XIV, § 1 and Const 1963, art 1, § 2, and MCR 2.511(F)(2).  
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded for a new 
trial on damages only before a different judge.  
KELLY, C.J., and CAVANAGH, CORRIGAN, and YOUNG, JJ., concurred with 
MARKMAN, J.
 
 
 
S T A T E  O F  M I C H I G A N 
 
SUPREME COURT 
 
 
ANTHONY PELLEGRINO, Individually 
and as Personal Representative of the Estate 
of SHIRLEY ANN PELLEGRINO, 
 
 
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
 
 
v 
No. 137111 
 
AMPCO SYSTEM PARKING, 
 
 
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
WEAVER, J. (dissenting). 
 
I dissent.  I would not reverse and remand this case because I believe that leave to 
appeal was improvidently granted.  I am not persuaded that the decision of the Court of 
Appeals was clearly erroneous or that defendant has suffered any injustice in this case.  
 
Further, I do not support the majority’s discussion regarding possible referral of 
the trial judge to the Judicial Tenure Commission. 
HATHAWAY, J., concurred with WEAVER, J.