Opinion ID: 1736768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Framework for analyzing Batson and J.E.B. challenges

Text: Batson held that a prospective juror's race is unrelated to his fitness as a juror and that the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors on account of race is prohibited by the equal protection clause. J.E.B. extended Batson's prohibition to gender, holding that gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for jury competence and impartiality. 511 U.S. at 129, 114 S.Ct. 1419. Regardless of whether the challenge is based on race or gender, the same three-step, burden-shifting framework outlined in Batson is utilized. [8] In its simplest statement, the Batson analysis is as follows: [O]nce the opponent of a peremptory challenge has made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination (step one), the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step two). If a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide (step three) whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful discrimination. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 1770-71, 131 L.Ed.2d 834, 839 (1995). Basically, [t]he challenging party acts at step one, the challenged attorney acts at step two, and the judge acts at step three. Tracy M.Y. Choy, Note: Branding Neutral Explanations Pretextual under Batson v. Kentucky: An Examination of the Role of the Trial Judge in Jury Selection, 48 Hastings L.J. 577, 584 (1997). If the trial court determines that the challenging party, here the defendant, failed to establish the threshold requirement of a prima facie case (step one), the analysis is at an end; and the burden of production is never shifted to the challenged attorney, here the prosecutor, to articulate neutral reasons (step two). [9] Such is the case here; as discussed in detail later, the trial judge ended the analysis when he expressly determined that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case. Given that this case solely involves step onethe challenging party's establishment of a prima facie casewe further examine that first step.