Jury Selection Kelburg
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
( Johnson v. California (2005) 125 S.Ct 2410 ., 2410 125 SUPREME COURT REPORTER . JOHNSON V; ,CALIFORNIA 2411 Ciie ..'t2!1 S.Ct. 2410 (2005') ," 'f~ o .' , ':':r;fi~#m~ii> l' Jay Shawn:JOHNSciN.Petltfoner. v. CAf;.IFORlIiIA. • No. O~96.4. '. Arl!lled.AprlI)8. !!Q05• .. \ .. ,; \,,,,' ~)I: CJ·:· ~ j. ,i 2412 125 SUPREME COURT REPORTER cr," JOHNSON ·v. CALIFORNIA, 2413 CUe.ull' S,C!. 2410 11005) U.S. 79. 106 S.Ot. 1712. 90 L.Ed.2d 69. proffered facts gives· urise to an inference BREYE;R. JJ.• joined. BREYER. J .• ,fiIed permits state 'courts to estsbllah the stan of discriminatory purpose." 476 U.S .• at a concurring opinio~, THOMAS, J., filed dards used to evaluate' the pnfficiency of 94. 106 S.Ot. 1712. The Court explained a dissenting opinion, prima facie cases of purposeful discrimina that to establlah a prima facie case. the tion in jury selection. Reviewing BatBon, defendaqt inust show that hill .membersljip Stephen B.' Bedrick. Oakland. CA. for Wheeler. and their progeny, the court con~ in a cognizable ~acial group, t11;e prosecu cluded that Wheele". "strong likelihood" tor's' exerciae of peremptory challenges to Petitioner. standard is entirely consistent with Bat remove members oC that group, the indis Seth K. SchaUt" San . J;i'rancisc~, CA, for Ban. Under Batson, the court held. a state putable 'fi~t that such challenges permit Respondent. court may require the' objector to present those inclined to discriminate to do so. and Stephen B. Bedrick. Oakland. CA. Elic not merely enough evidence to permit an any other rel~van~ circwnstnnces raise an . Schnapper, Seattie. WA. fo~ Petitioner. inference that discrimination has occurred, inference that the prosecutor excluded ve but sufficiently' strong evidence to estab nire members on account of race, I d., at Bill Lockyer. Attorney General. Robert lish that the challenges. if not explained. 96. 106. S.Ct. 1712. The Court assQrned R. Anderson. Chief ASsistant Attorney Syllabus - were more likllly than not liased on race. that the trial judge would have the. benefit General. Gerald A- Engier. Senior Assis~ Petitioner Johnson, a black man, was Applying that stand.... d. tre court acjmowl o( alll'elevarit c~cum5timces, including the mot· Attorney General, Laurence K. Sulli convicted in a 'Callfornia state court of edged that the exclusion of all three black jJr,ol;lecutor's explanation, before deciding van, Supervising Deputy Attorney Gi.mer assauiting 'and murdering' a' white child. prospective jurors looked suspicious, but whether It was more likely than not that al. Seth K. SchaUt. Supervising Deputy During jury selection, a number of pro deterred to the trial judge's ruling.' ' the peremptory challenge ,wliS improperly Attorney General, San Francisco, CAr for spective jurors were removed for cause Held: Ca1ifQrnia's umore likely than motivated. The Court did not intend the Respondent .. until 43 eligible jurors remained, 'three of not" standard is an inappropriate yardstick first step to be so oner~lUs that a defendant For U.S. Supreme Court briefs, see: whom were black. The 'prosecutor used 3 by which to measure the sufficiency of a would have to persuade the judge-<ln the of his 12 peremptory challenges to remove prima facie case of purposeful discrlminaM b~i8 of all the facts, some or which ~e 2005 WL 282136 (Pet.BrieO . the prospective black jurors~ resulting in tlon in jury seiection. ,This' narrow but impossible for, the defendant to know with 2005 WL 585218 (Resp.BrieO an all-white jury. ,Defense counsel 'object important issue concerns the scope of the ,certalnty~that the challenge. was more 2005 WL 769838 (Reply.Bri~O ed to those strikes on the ground that they first of three steps BatBon enumerated: iikely than n~t the, product of purposeful were unconstifutionally. based on race. (1) Once the defendant has made out a discrimination. Instead. a defendant satis Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion The trial judge did not ask the proaecutor prima facie case and (2) the state has fles BatB,;n'8first, 's~p reqUirements by of the Court. to .explain his strikes. but instead simply satisfied its burden to offer penitillsible producing evidence sufficient to permit the [1] The Supreme Court of California found that petitioner had failed to estab race-neutral justifications for the strikes, trial judge to draw an inference ,that dis , and the United slates Court of Appealsfor llsh a prima facie case of purposeful dis e.g .• 476 U.S .• at 94. 106 S.Ot. 1712. then crunimition has occurred. The facts of the Ninth Circuit have provided cQnflicUng crimination under the governing state (3) the trial court· must decide whether the thill casei1l~strate that Callrorrrla'" stan, answers ',. to the folloWing quesU.ori: precedent, People 11. Wlweler, which re defendant has proved purposeful racial dis dard ill at odds with the prim~ facie inqui "Whether to estabUsh' a prim~ facis case ry mandated by BatBon. The permissible quit'ed a showing of a strong likelihood 'criminatiOJi. Purkett 11. Blsm, 614 U.S. 766. unde~ Batson 11. Kentucky. 476 U.S. 79. that the exer!'!se of peremptory. challenges 115 S.Ot. 1769. 131 L.Ed.2d, 834. Batson inferences of discrlmination. which caused .106 S.Ct. 1712. 90 L..Ed.2d 69 (1986). the was based on group bias. The judge ex does not' permit Caiifornia, to require at the trial judge to comment that "the case objector must show that it is more lil!eiy plained iIiat. although the caae wliS' close. step one that the objector show that it ill was close and the California Supreme than not that the other party's peremptory his review of the record copvinced him that more likely than not the other party's per Court to acknowledge that it. was suspi challenges, if u~exp]Rtnedt wer~ based '~n cious that aU three black. prospective ju the prosecuto~s strikes cQuld .. be jusj;ified emptory challenges. if unexplained; were impermissible group bias?" pel~ fur. Cert. by race-neutral reasons. The, California based on impmmissible group bias. The rors were r.emoved, were sufficient to es i. Because both of those courtaregularly Court of Appeal set aside theconvictlon. BatBon Court held that a prir!ta facie case tabllah a prima facie case. Pp. 241S-2419. r~view' th~ validity of corivi~tlons obtained but the State Supreme Courtreins~ted It. can be made out by offering a wil\e variety Reversed and remanded. in California criminal trials.' respondent. stressIng' that Batson 11. Kentucky, 476 of evidence. &0 long as the sum' olthe STEVENS. J .• delivered th~ opinion the State of California. agreed to petitlon-' of the Court. in which REHNQUIST. C. er's request tl}at. we grant certiot;ari and • The syllabus constitutes part of the opinion ~o the reader. See Uniled'States v. Detroit Tim resolve the conflict. We agree with the of the Court but has been prepared by' the be"r &- Lumber Co., 200 U,S. '321,337,-26 S.Ct .. J .• and O·CONNOR. SCALIA, R.eporter of DecIsions for the convenience of , 2S2. 50 L.Ed. 499. KENNEDY.' SOUTER. 'GINSBURG. and Ninth Circuit that the question presented f'" ;J M.- 241( '125SUPREMIil :COURT,REPORTER ()It JOHNSON.Y. CALIFORNIA 2415 , 'c'l~u ..:i!l':8.d;:24fo (ms) : unlet bE{ answeriid negatlvet .and Inth~ however,:warn .the prosecutor that ,I, 'we , aecordliigly ' reiersethe-judgtitent ortbe. ,~ . miaaiblybased.onrace;Instead, the;glal . h8l1Iiccl1rr~d ... Bo. ~aI.4th, at IB15, 1. Cal. ;. ..revery. close.'!' .PelJ'}lle·'. v,'. ifohllson; 10.5 'CallfomlaSUllreme Court: . 'jiIdge.BltoWdihaveonlyrequlred·P,OtltI<iner Rptr.Bd:1,: 71P.Bdj .a~ 27S.Bat8m~ the Cal;Rptr;2d.727;729,(2001): to 'proffer'eilOugh evidence tosupport.an courthel~,,:'pehnlts 8 court to require the r Defense·coimselmade.anaddltlonal ina- "'lliferil1lce"ofdiscrln\lnatlon;I,TheCourt objector to present, !iotmet'elY,'some evi: Petition.,. Jai.:Shawn JoIillson, a bl~ck ·tlon ,the,nextdaY·when;th~ prosecutor of!Appeal'sl~lI;ldIn'g 'relied ,oridecislon8of dence"permlttlng .the inference; but - male, was .0nvl.ta'Un aCa1Iforhla trial ., .struck "the d'inal remAln!ng. Foopectlve . thiS "CoUrt, 'prior: CalifOrula. CBBe law, Bod 'strong, eVIdence' tllat roa!<es discrlminato· court of sec~nd-degree m'l"der and BBsa"lt' bl~~juro" . B0 .o.aU!hj,"at,lBo.7, .l"Cal t!\e·lIeci8ionofthe''Unll.ed'State~ Court of ry Intent mot~ likely tklilll\Ot if the ehal o~ ~:whltelg..:montIi"",ld chlldi.l.'esUltlng'In' .•Rptr.Bd 1I111l",Bd; at;272: . CoUnSel or ,·Appeals'foHheNlnth'~Circultjii.Wads 11. lenges ore not explained." BO Ca!.4th, at death:. Durlngjury·selectlon,. number· of .geed that the prosecutor's declslim tofchal 'T81'/w~2021F.Ba'1190·(2000); Applying 1816,1 Calatptr.8d I, 71P.Bd, at 278. The proSpllctiVe,lurors were T~oV'edfor cause' leDge Iill· of the,ploSpilc'tlve ;bIilck jtlroril the proper ''reasonabIe 'inference" 'sbjn-' 'churtopbtedthet:whilethis burden Is "not untU4~eilgiblejl1ror~ reniaineeli' B of con~tltutedt'a"sY,Bteinatlcat~t ~' ex. "derd:;t!\e inoJonty colll'lude'l'thtit petltlon-: onerous,"ltrenialns "SUbstantia!." Ibid., 1 whom.w~re.bl,ack. Theprosecutor'iIsed B .clude.:A:t'rlcaiI-#il!rlC8n~ ;fr~ni the'-jury er'ljaa:produced'stU'ficlent Svldence to ·sup· CaI.Rptr.8d'lj 71'1'.Sd,at 279. of his 12. pereniJltOry~halienges to remove p~nel." 105 .Cal'1!Ptr.2dpit '729. The'trlal pOrt.sprlllla fealecase. ." .. ' ..•.. ApplYtng that standord, the court ac· the blW;k prospective jurors. The result- juilge ,s!\li dldnot_seek.~n explanation Respona"tit a~jll'Bledj and theCaUCornra knOwledged that the case Inyolved' the in~ j'!l'Y, 'Including alternateS, WBB all f1:om .the Jlr~~cu\"".