Opinion ID: 547646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: De Gross' Challenge of Tiffany

Text: 6 De Gross argues that the district court erred in denying her peremptory challenge of Tiffany, a male venireperson. At trial, the government had objected to De Gross' challenge on the ground that De Gross exercised it with discriminatory intent, and therefore, if the district court struck Tiffany, that would violate Tiffany's equal protection rights. 4 We must first decide whether the government has standing to make this objection. If so, we must decide whether equal protection principles prohibit a criminal defendant from exercising her peremptory challenges on the basis of a venireperson's gender. If equal protection principles do prohibit such conduct, we must decide finally whether De Gross did exercise her peremptory challenge with discriminatory intent. 7
8 In Batson v. Kentucky, the Court held that a prosecutor's discriminatory peremptory challenge violates the defendant's right to equal protection of the laws because the defendant is entitled to be tried by a jury chosen pursuant to racially nondiscriminatory criteria. 476 U.S. at 85-89, 106 S.Ct. at 1716-19. The Court also held, however, that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors harms not only the accused, but also the excluded juror and the entire community. Id. at 87, 106 S.Ct. at 1718. The Court stated that by denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race, the State unconstitutionally discriminated against the excluded juror. Id. (citing Carter v. Jury Comm'n of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320, 329-30, 90 S.Ct. 518, 523-24, 24 L.Ed.2d 549 (1970)). We hold that the United States may object to a criminal defendant's discriminatory peremptory challenge because the United States has standing to assert the equal protection rights of the venireperson sought to be excluded. 5 9 First, the government's relationship to the venireperson is sufficient to ensure that it will vigorously defend his or her rights. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114-15, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2874-75, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). The government has a direct interest in protecting the rights of its citizens, including potential jurors. Additionally, the government has an interest in maintaining a venireperson's perception of the criminal justice system as fair, impartial, and free from discrimination. The mere existence of discriminatory practices in jury selection cast[s] doubt on the integrity of the whole judicial process. Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502-03, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 2168-69, 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972). Selection procedures that violate a venireperson's equal protection rights undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Batson, 476 U.S. at 87, 106 S.Ct. at 1718. 10 Second, several obstacles exist to prevent an excluded venireperson from asserting his own rights. See Singleton, 428 U.S. at 115-16, 96 S.Ct. at 2874-75. In the context of racial discrimination, Justice Kennedy has noted that: 11 Individual jurors subjected to peremptory racial exclusion have the legal right to bring a suit on their own behalf, Carter v. Jury Comm'n of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320 [90 S.Ct. 518, 24 L.Ed.2d 549] (1970), but as a practical matter this sort of challenge is most unlikely. The reality is that a juror dismissed because of his race will leave the courtroom with a lasting sense of exclusion from the experience of jury participation, but possessing little incentive or resources to set in motion the arduous process needed to vindicate his own rights. 12 Holland, 110 S.Ct. at 812 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Even if a civil suit were brought by excluded jurors, it may prove to be an ineffective remedy against discrimination by defendants. See Note, Discrimination by the Defense: Peremptory Challenges After Batson v. Kentucky, 88 Colum.L.Rev. 355, 367 (1988). 13 In other situations, a venireperson may not be aware initially that he or she has been discriminated against. Such discrimination may not become apparent until a number of similarly situated venirepersons have been struck. Also, the venireperson is not a party to the litigation and, therefore, may not be in a position to complain to the trial judge that her right not to be excluded from jury service on the basis of her group membership has been violated. Thus, she may lack an immediate remedy for her unconstitutional exclusion from the trial. 14 Third, violation of the venireperson's rights injures the United States by impugning the jury system. In addition, when a criminal defendant, through discriminatory peremptory challenges, attempts to achieve a jury partial to her, the government's interest in fair trials is injured. See Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 36, 85 S.Ct. 783, 790, 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965) ([T]he Government, as a litigant, has a legitimate interest in seeing that cases in which it believes a conviction is warranted are tried before the tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result.) 15 We therefore conclude that the government has standing to object to De Gross' peremptory challenge of Tiffany under these circumstances.
16 In Batson, the Supreme Court held that the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment prohibits a prosecutor from exercising peremptory challenges on the basis of a venireperson's race. 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. at 1719. We now address the question whether the principles established in Batson compel us to prohibit the exercise of peremptory challenges on the basis of the venireperson's gender. 7 At the outset, however, we must note that the constitution treats gender classifications differently than racial classifications. While the constitution will not allow racial classifications unless they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest, the constitution tolerates gender classifications that are substantially related to the achievement of important governmental objectives. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440-41, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254-55, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) (discussing the different levels of constitutional scrutiny to which different classifications are subjected). Peremptory challenges are a necessary means for achieving the important governmental objective of impaneling a fair and impartial jury. See Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 211-12, 85 S.Ct. 824, 831-32, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965); Batson, 476 U.S. at 123, 106 S.Ct. at 1737 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). A party is not always able to justify his sudden and immediate impression that a particular venireperson will be partial. See id.; Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 376, 13 S.Ct. 136, 138, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892). 17 But challenges explained by a venireperson's gender are not based on a party's sudden impression of a particular venireperson's ability to be impartial. Rather, like racial challenges, they are based either on the false assumption that members of a certain group are unqualified to serve as jurors, Batson, 476 U.S. at 86, 106 S.Ct. at 1717 (citing Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587, 599, 55 S.Ct. 579, 584, 79 L.Ed. 1074 (1935)), or on the false assumption that members of certain groups are unable impartially to consider the case against a member or a non-member of their group, cf. Batson, 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. at 1719 (assumption that members of a certain group are unable to consider a case against a member of their group is false). Peremptory challenges exercised on the basis of a venireperson's gender, therefore, are not substantially related to achieving an impartial jury. See id. at 98-99, 106 S.Ct. at 1723-24 (prohibiting discriminatory peremptory challenges will not undermine the contribution of peremptory challenges to the administration of justice). 18 In addition to their failure to relate substantially to the important governmental interest of an impartial jury, gender-based peremptory challenges also fail to relate substantially to other important governmental interests including public confidence in the judicial system and the absence of community prejudice. Racial discrimination during jury selection harms the excluded venirepersons, undermines public confidence in the judicial system, and stimulates community prejudice. Id. at 87, 106 S.Ct. at 1718. Because gender discrimination during jury selection is not substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest, the fifth amendment's equal protection principles compel us to prohibit peremptory challenges on the basis of gender. 8 19 Peremptory challenges based on gender, like those based on race, harm the excluded venireperson because discriminatory challenges are based on group membership whereas juror competence depends upon an individual's qualifications. Id. Just as a person's race simply 'is unrelated to his fitness as a juror,'  Id. at 99, 106 S.Ct. at 1724 (quoting Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co., 328 U.S. 217, 227, 66 S.Ct. 984, 989, 90 L.Ed. 1181 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)), so too a person's gender is unrelated to her ability to serve as a juror. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 537, 95 S.Ct. 692, 701, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). Gender bears no relationship to an individual's ability to participate on a jury. Cf. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 1770, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973). 20 Furthermore, full community participation in the administration of the criminal justice system, whether measured by race or gender, is critical to public confidence in the system's fairness. See Taylor, 419 U.S. at 530, 95 S.Ct. at 697. A jury is not truly representative of the community unless both sexes have the same opportunity to serve. See Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193-94, 67 S.Ct. 261, 264-65, 91 L.Ed. 181 (1946). The exclusion of men, or of women, is as incongruous with traditional notions of the jury as a representative body  'composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine,'  Batson, 476 U.S. at 86, 106 S.Ct. at 1717 (quoting Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 308, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880)), as exclusion of a racial minority. 21 And, just as racial discrimination in the judicial system is a stimulant to community prejudice that impedes fair treatment for racial minorities, Batson, 476 U.S. at 87-88, 106 S.Ct. at 1718-19, so too is gender discrimination in the judicial system a stimulant to community prejudice which impedes fair treatment for women. See Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 273, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2293, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979) (like classifications based on race, gender classifications have traditionally been the touchstone for pervasive and often subtle gender discrimination). 22 We conclude, therefore, that equal protection principles prohibit peremptory challenges exercised on the basis of a venireperson's gender. 23
24 Our conclusion that equal protection principles prohibit gender-based peremptory challenges of venirepersons clearly applies to prosecutors. Batson, 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. at 1719. Batson, however, explicitly left open the question whether equal protection principles limit a criminal defendant's peremptory challenges. Id. at 89 n. 12, 106 S.Ct. at 1719. We hold that because the evils of discriminatory peremptory challenges result from the misuse of peremptory challenges, regardless of which party exercises the challenges, the fifth amendment similarly limits a federal criminal defendant's peremptory challenges. 25 Whether the prosecutor or the defendant exercises the challenges, the excluded venirepersons are harmed because discriminatory challenges are based on group membership whereas juror competence depends upon an individual's qualifications. See supra at 1422. And regardless of the source of the challenges, public confidence in the judicial system's fairness is undermined by discriminatory challenges. See supra at 1423. Thus, public respect for our criminal justice system and the rule of law will be strengthened if we ensure that no citizen is disqualified from jury service because of his membership in a constitutionally cognizable group such as race or gender. 9 26 De Gross argues, however, that even if Batson's rationale logically applies to a criminal defendant's peremptory challenges, such conduct is not fairly attributable to the state, and therefore, the constitution's guarantee of equal protection does not limit it. We are convinced, however, that a criminal defendant's peremptory challenge is state action. First, the deprivation of the venireperson's equal rights is caused by the defendant's exercise of a right created by the State, the right to make peremptory challenges. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1870 (1988); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). 27 Second, comparison to state action cases reveals that a criminal defendant who exercises peremptory challenges can fairly be said to be a state actor because she makes use of state procedures with the overt, significant assistance of state officials. Tulsa Professional Collection Servs. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 486, 108 S.Ct. 1340, 1345, 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988). For example, in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948), a state court enforced a racially restrictive covenant signed by the seller of a house against the black buyers of the house. The Supreme Court found state action when the seller ceased voluntary adherence to the discriminatory covenant and the state court intervened to enforce it at the request of third parties. Id. at 19, 68 S.Ct. at 845. Similarly, state action occurs when a trial judge enforces a party's discriminatory peremptory challenge by excusing the challenged venireperson. 28 In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961), a black man challenged a restaurant's refusal to serve him as a violation of the fourteenth amendment. The restaurant leased its space, which was located in a publicly owned parking building operated in the public interest, directly from a state agency. The Court found that by allowing the restaurant to discriminate on state property, the state had effectively abdicated its duty not to discriminate. Id. at 723-25, 81 S.Ct. at 860-62. Here, peremptory challenges are exercised in a public federal building operated in the public interest. And if the trial judge were to accept a peremptory challenge without considering whether the challenge was exercised with discriminatory intent, the trial judge would effectively be abdicating his duty not to discriminate. 29 Pursuant to a state's statutory scheme, the defendant in Lugar filed an ex parte petition for a prejudgment writ of attachment of plaintiff's property in state court. 457 U.S. at 941, 102 S.Ct. at 2755. The court clerk issued the writ and the county sheriff executed it. The Supreme Court found the defendant's joint participation with state officials in the seizure of the disputed property sufficient to characterize the defendant as a state actor for purposes of the fourteenth amendment. Id. Likewise, the federal government also supplies the means for a criminal defendant to deprive venirepersons of their equal rights. The federal government summons citizens for jury service, see 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1861-1869 (1988), and compels them to serve as jurors under threat of criminal prosecution, see id. at Sec. 1864(b). The citizens must appear at the federal courthouse. Once there, they are assembled and instructed by federal court officials. Then, during the course of a federal judicial proceeding, and with the assistance of the trial judge, parties invoke judicial procedures which have the potential to deprive venirepersons of their constitutional rights. 30 Finally, in Pope, a state court denied a hospital's application for payment of a decedent's medical expenses based on the time bar of the state's nonclaim statue. 485 U.S. at 487, 108 S.Ct. at 1346. The statute's time bar ran two months after the court, in probate proceedings, appointed an administrator who then published notice to creditors of the estate and filed copies with the court. The Court found state action in the probate court's intimate involvement in the administrator's denial of the hospital's application. Id. Like the nonclaim statute in Pope, peremptory challenges are not self-executing. Like the administrator in Pope, a party seeking to exercise discriminatory peremptory challenges must necessarily rely upon the court to call citizens to serve as jurors, to begin the voir dire in a judicial proceeding, and to excuse challenged venirepersons. 31 Hence, we conclude that the constitution limits a criminal defendant's peremptory challenges because the defendant's action in striking venirepersons is fairly attributable to the state. 32
33 A litigant objecting on constitutional grounds to the challenge to a venireperson on the basis of gender establishes a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination first by showing that the peremptory challenge was exercised against a member of a constitutionally cognizable group. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. Second, the litigant must demonstrate that this fact and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the offending party challenged the venireperson on account of their group membership. Id. The burden then shifts to the offending party to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason related to the particular case to be tried for challenging the juror. Id. at 97-98, 106 S.Ct. at 1723-24. 10 The district court's findings regarding purposeful discrimination in the jury selection process are findings which we will not set aside unless clearly erroneous. Id. at 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. at 1724 n. 21; United States v. Power, 881 F.2d 733, 739 (9th Cir.1989). 34 Here, we cannot say that the district court's inference that De Gross challenged Tiffany on account of his gender was clearly erroneous. The challenged venireperson, Tiffany, is a male. Males are a constitutionally cognizable group. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-99, 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-58, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). De Gross previously exercised seven of her eight peremptory challenges against males. At the time De Gross challenged Tiffany, ten women and two men were seated in the jury box, and only one man remained in the venire. It was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude that the foregoing pattern of strikes raised an inference that De Gross acted to exclude Tiffany because of his status as a male. 35 Because the prosecutor established a prime facie case of gender discrimination, the burden shifted to De Gross to justify her challenge of Tiffany on neutral grounds. De Gross failed to carry her burden because she refused to explain her challenge. Thus, the district court properly disallowed De Gross' challenge of Tiffany.