Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986) - Case Study Example

In this case, the peremptory challenge that was laid before the court in order to remove all Black representatives in the jury and this was done so without a valid cause. Although the defense tried to object to the jury set up prior to the jury being sworn in, the judge in the case over-ruled their motion stating that the peremptory challenge could be used against anybody that the court felt it should be used against (Batson v. Kentucky). After the decision of the court came out, the defense went to the supreme court to raise their objection once again to the fact that Mr.

Batson was tried by a jury composed solely of Whites and therefore, was not truly represented by a jury of his peers as the law promised all of the accused in a jury trial. Supreme Court Justice Powell held the decision that the 14th Amendment was violated in this instance and that in no case can the prosecution ever use a peremptory challenge without stating a valid reason for doing so. The state must always support its claim to have a juror removed with a valid cause. However, a dissenting opinion was voiced by Supreme Court Justice Berger, who believed that although the burden of proof lay within the responsibility of the state, the Equal Protection clause was not violated in this case.

Justice Marshall further bolstered the claim of Justice Berger by indicating that the peremptory challenge cannot be used to distort the jury process by exclusion on racial grounds (Batson v. Kentucky). Having now come to an understanding that a peremptory challenge cannot be instigated simply on a whim by either the prosecution or defense, it is important to understand that such a challenge is not the same as a “challenge for cause”. To make things clearer, let us first differentiate the meaning of the two legal terms. “. the right of the plaintiff and the defendant in a jury trial to have a juror dismissed before trial without