Opinion ID: 2634394
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal law governing Batson

Text: ¶ 28 In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 86, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court declared that [t]he Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race. Batson outlines a three-part process to determine whether a prosecutor has excluded a juror based on race. First, the challenger must make out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose. Id. at 93-94, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Second, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging the juror. Id. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712. And third, [t]he trial court then [has] the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. Id. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. ¶ 29 The Batson Court further outlined the requirements of a prima facie case. To establish a prima facie case, the challenger first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group. Id. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Second, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror from the jury on account of the juror's race. Id. ¶ 30 Although the Supreme Court has provided some elucidation on this three-part process since Batson, the Court has also recognized that the states have flexibility in the procedure for applying the Batson test. Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 168, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005); Batson, 476 U.S. at 99, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (We decline . . . to formulate particular procedures to be followed upon a defendant's timely objection to a prosecutor's challenges.). Lower courts have been entrusted with the task of determining the type and amount of proof necessary for a defendant to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.