Document: 478 U.S. 255 106 S.Ct. 2878 92 L.Ed.2d 199 Earl ALLENv.Stephen L. HARDY et al. No. 85-6593. June 30, 1986. PER CURIAM. 1 In 1978, petitioner Allen, a black man, was indicted for murdering his girlfriend and her brother. During selection of the petit jurors at petitioner's trial, prosecutor exercised 9 State's 17 peremptory challenges to strike 7 2 Hispanic veniremen. Defense counsel moved discharge jury on ground that " 'State's use undercut [petitioner's] right an impartial selected from cross-section community by systematically excluding minorities jury.' People v. 96 Ill.App.3d 871, 875, 52 Ill.Dec. 419, 423, 422 N.E.2d 100, 104 (1981). The trial judge denied motion. convicted both counts, sentenced him two concurrent prison terms 100 300 years. On appeal, repeated argument concerning exercise challenges. Relying Swain Alabama, 380 202, 85 824, 13 759 (1965), Illinois case law decided under Swain, Appellate Court rejected argument. court reasoned in absence showing prosecutors jurisdiction were using their members particular racial group, "a prosecutor's motives may not be inquired into when he excludes group sitting challenges." Ill.App.3d, Ill.Dec., N.E.2d, 104. record this did establish systematic exclusion as required Swain. 876, therefore affirmed convictions. Id., 880, 426, 107. 3 Petitioner then filed petition federal habeas corpus relief District Northern Illinois, which renewed Construing alleging only excluded juries, motion discovery support claim, relief. United States ex rel. Allen Hardy, 577 F.Supp. 984 (1984). Petitioner's failure "to make even offer proof" satisfy evidentiary standard constituted procedural default had offered no excuse. 986; see 583 562 subsequent opinion, also considered contention its violated Sixth Amendment. 586 103, 104-106 Moreover, noting Appeals Seventh Circuit "twice within past 60 days reconfirmed continuing validity Swain," decision orders rested, declined issue certificate probable cause. 4 notice construed application cause appeal. Finding failed "substantial denial right" or questions sought raise "deserve[d] further proceedings," request 5 certiorari, argues Appeals' refusal erroneous view fact Batson Kentucky, 476 79, 1712, 90 69 (1986), pending before us time decision. thrust is rule should available remand. We conclude our applied retroactively collateral review convictions became final opinion announced.1 Accordingly, we grant leave proceed forma pauperis, writ affirm judgment Appeals. 6 deciding extent announcing new constitutional criminal procedure given retroactive effect, traditionally has weighed three factors. They are '(a) purpose served standards, (b) reliance enforcement authorities old (c) effect administration justice standards.' Solem Stumes, 465 638, 643, 1338, 1341, 79 579 (1984) (quoting Stovall Denno, 388 293, 297, 87 1967, 1970, 18 1199 (1967)); Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 636, 1731, 1741, 14 601 (1965). While retroactivity requires careful consideration all criteria, held "is almost automatically nonretroactive" where "has explicitly overruled precedent." supra, U.S., 646, 647, S.Ct., 1343. Kentucky explicit substantial break with prior precedent. that, although account race Equal Protection Clause, defendant could such violation solely proof action own trial. 220-226, 835-839. portion changing proving unconstitutional abuse Against background, consider whether announced murder first factor concerns rule. Retroactive "appropriate principle designed enhance accuracy trials," 1342, but have some impact does compel finding retroactivity. 643-645, 1341-1343. Instead, weighs favor "goes heart truthfinding function." 645, By serving defendant's interest neutral procedures, bearing function But serves other values well. Our holding ensures do discriminate against citizens who summoned sit member strengthens public confidence justice. Batson, therefore, serve multiple ends," truthfinding. See Brown Louisiana, 447 323, 329, 2214, 2220, 65 159 (1980); Tehan Shott, 382 406, 414, 86 459, 464, 15 453 (1966). Significantly, joins procedures protect factfinder.2 Those mechanisms existed creating high probability individual seated free bias. cannot say fundamental integrity factfinding application. 8 factors weigh heavily nonretroactive effect. As noted above, it significantly changes burden imposed prosecutor. There question prosecutors, judges, appellate courts throughout state systems justifiably relied Swain.3 Indeed, decisions affirming denying clearly illustrate lower placed Under these circumstances, officials "compelling" supports retroactive. 650, 1345. Similarly, would seriously disrupt require hold hearings, often years after conviction final, determine established prima facie discrimination. Where made out case, ask explain reasons challenges, task impossible virtually every since prosecutor, relying reason think explanation someday necessary. Many vacated, retrial "hampered problems lost evidence, faulty memory, missing witnesses." 1345; 637, 1742. 10 weighing pertinent criteria compels conclusion Appeals.4 11 Affirmed. 12 Justice BLACKMUN certiorari set oral MARSHALL, whom STEVENS joins, dissenting. too many occasions recent years, I felt compelled express my dissatisfaction Court's readiness dispose summarily petitions merits without affording parties opportunity file briefs. See, e.g., Los Angeles Heller, 475 796, 800, 1571, 1573, 89 806 (1986) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Cuyahoga Valley R. Co. Transportation Union, 474 3, 8, 286, 288, 88 (1985) Maggio Fulford, 462 111, 120-121, 103 2261, 2265-2266, 76 794 (1983) dissenting). "[B]y cases summarily, benefit full briefing, limited access to, of, record, runs great risk rendering ill-advised confuse courts: there believe immune making mistakes, particularly kinds circumstances." Harris Rivera, 454 339, 349, 102 460, 466, 70 530 (1981) circumstances less propitious case. Generally disposes least benefited tendency petitioners respondents focus excessively they consider. Here, because never address those seeking convictions, respondent chose devote single sentence issue. addition, been addressed any other. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 263, 271, 3081, 3085, 73 754 (1982) (BLACKMUN, write clean slate case—a position ordinarily take pains avoid. 16 today reflects unseemly haste important presented here resolved. Like Court, ante 258, "new rule" critical concern inquiry review; indeed, generally decisive. Williams States, 401 666, 91 1148, 1159, 28 (1971) concurring part dissenting part). However, am persuaded majority's lacks "such application," ante, 259. surely correct note "serves values" besides accurate factfinding. Ibid. "The goes beyond defendant, produces "injury system, institution, large, democratic ideal reflected processes courts.' McCray New York, 461 961, 968, 2438, 2442, 77 1322 certiorari). A targets discriminatory practices will thus provide redress unconstitutionally struck panels. That defendants beneficiaries rule, however, hardly diminish assessment rule's upon ability receive fair share "other procedures" place "creat[e] bias," When prosecution uses strikes remove blacks Hispanics jury, threat process cured measures merely ensure white permitted legal impartiality. "When large identifiable segment service, room qualities human nature varieties experience, range unknown perhaps unknowable. It necessary assume consistently vote class order . deprives perspective events unsuspected importance presented." Peters Kiff, 407 493, 503-504, 2163, 2168-2169, 33 83 (1972) (opinion J.). Certainly, one need distinctive venire affect believe, do, cull empaneled significant unacceptable. 87, n. 1717, ("For perform intended check official power, must body drawn community"). 19 considerations finds similarly unpersuasive. 260, overestimates "reliance officials" regime. This primary conduct prohibited another. quite clear Clause. All give means enforcing prohibition. Even if willing effective unenforceability pronouncements thought deemed legitimate. 20 Finally, observes "retroactive justice." Ante, 260. Perhaps true; not. papers allow basis estimate how pursuing preserved claim courts. inquiry, more than aspect participation interested amici, compelling, act uninformed assumptions, disturbing. 21 briefing next Term. "By mean rendered, availability appeal exhausted, elapsed in" Kentucky. 622, 5, 1734, direct announced. Griffith 85-5221 (cert. granted, 1157, 2274, 717 (1986)), 85-5731 2275, 718 (1986)). Voir dire examination identify veniremen biased so persons excused through charge typically includes instructions emphasizing rest impermissible factor, passion prejudice. fully documented elsewhere. 82, 1, 1715, (1986); Abrams, 750 F.2d 1113, 1120, (CA2 1984), vacated remanded, 1001, 3289, 705 (1986). erroneously juries jurisdiction. bare objection preserve review. Since points authority casting doubt least, issue, waived. properly determined not, prejudice excusing default. Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 53 594 (1977).

Category: 0