Search

In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor to strike a black juror based solely on race violated the Equal Protection Clause. This Note argues that Batson should be extended to prohibit discriminatory use of peremptory challenges based on sexual orientation. The Ninth Circuit has adopted this approach, recently holding both that Batson extends to sexual orientation and that heightened scrutiny applies to such challenges. The Supreme Court should uphold the Ninth Circuit' s decision as an important step on the road to securing gay rights both in the courtroom and elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the significance and influence of racial diversity to juries under the analysis of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act of 2009 (RJA). It discusses the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky, whose regimes had put an effort in prohibiting racial discrimination.

In Batson v. Kentucky case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor to strike black venirepersons from the jury in a criminal case with an Afro-American defendant. Under the Batson test, once a defendant makes out a prima facie case of such use, the prosecutor must offer a race-neutral explanation for the strikes, which will be evaluated by the court. This test was intended to prevent discrimination from intruding into the judicial process. In subsequent cases, however, the Court has interpreted the phrase "race-neutral" to require only that the attorney's explanation for the strikes not explicitly refer to race or other protected status. This interpretation has effectively transformed this step of the Batson inquiry into a "say no evil, see no evil" test in which courts defer to any explanation, regardless of how unreasonable or implausible.