Opinion ID: 2533183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the jury selection process was constitutionally infirm and requires reversal of pitchford's conviction and sentence of death.

Text: ¶ 12. In his first assignment of error, Pitchford makes three arguments, which we shall address in turn.
¶ 13. Citing Batson v. Kentucky , [3] Pitchford asserts the State exercised its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. [4] In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that the State of Kentucky was prohibited from racially discriminating through its exercise of peremptory strikes. [5] Building on Batson, the Supreme Court later stated that the Constitution forbids striking even a single juror for a discriminatory purpose. [6] For purposes of analyzing a claim of discrimination in jury selection, Batson and its progeny have established a three-step inquiry for courts to follow. ¶ 14. First, the party objecting to the peremptory strike of a potential juror must make a prima facie showing that race was the criterion for the strike. Second, upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the State to articulate a race-neutral reason for excluding that particular juror. Finally, after a race-neutral explanation has been offered by the prosecution, the trial court must determine whether the objecting party has met its burden to prove that there has been purposeful discrimination in the exercise of the peremptory strike, i.e., that the reason given was a pretext for discrimination. [7]