In Case You Missed It: NBA in Baltimore

The problem with peremptory challenges

Justice SystemChemical IndustryPharmaceutical IndustryStephen BreyerHIV - AIDSAbbott Laboratories

If lawyers are forbidden to remove prospective jurors based on their race or gender, they shouldn't be able to do so on the basis of the jurors' sexual orientation. That's the rule in California state courts, and this week the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to rule that it should apply in federal trials as well.

We agree that all courts should treat sexual orientation in this setting in the same way they do race and gender. But that won't address the underlying problem, which is that it is easy for lawyers to conceal discriminatory motives for so-called peremptory challenges of prospective jurors.

Peremptory challenges are not to be confused with challenges "for cause," which are based on factors such as a potential juror's personal or financial relationship with one of the parties in the case. Historically, peremptory challenges didn't require an explanation; a lawyer could use one to exclude a juror he merely suspected of being unsympathetic. For example, a defense attorney in an obscenity trial might seek to remove a juror who was active in her church.

In the 1986 case of Batson vs. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors couldn't use peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors based on their race. The court said that once the defendant made a prima facie case that a challenge was racially motivated, the prosecution had to offer a "neutral," nonracial explanation for the exclusion. Eight years later, the court extended its ruling to cases in which peremptory challenges were used to strike jurors based on their gender.

On Wednesday, the pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham asked the 9th Circuit Court to extend the Batson rule to peremptory challenges based on sexual orientation. The company has been involved in a legal dispute with another drug company, Abbott Laboratories, which alienated the gay community by increasing the price of an AIDS medication. At trial, a lawyer for Abbott had used a peremptory challenge to exclude a gay man from the juror pool.

Unfortunately, even if the Batson ruling were extended to cover sexual orientation, it would still be easy for lawyers to disguise their true motives for peremptory challenges. The neutral explanation lawyers can cite for a peremptory challenge can include trivial matters such as a prospective juror's age, body language or attire. Noting the ease with which Batson could be circumvented, Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested in 2005 that peremptory challenges be abolished. That's still a good idea.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
Justice SystemChemical IndustryPharmaceutical IndustryStephen BreyerHIV - AIDSAbbott Laboratories
  • Police need to know the laws they enforce

    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" — except when you're a police officer. That's essentially the argument the state of North Carolina made to the U.S. Supreme Court last week when it defended the drug conviction of a man whose car was stopped by police based on a...

  • Pay workers for time spent at security checkpoint

    Imagine you've finished your shift, left your workstation, and as you exit the building you have to wait an additional 20 or 25 minutes to clear a security checkpoint set up by your employer to ensure that you aren't stealing anything. Should you be paid for that time as part of...

  • Supreme Court should give half an inch on inmate's beard

    When it ruled this year that Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation, had a religious right to refuse to include contraception in its employee health insurance plans, the Supreme Court pushed an important principle to unreasonable extremes. But the principle itself — that government...

  • Let's lift the Supreme Court's veil of secrecy

    Every year the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are faced with about 7,500 writs of certiorari seeking appellate review of lower court decisions, granting only 75 to 80. It takes four justices to grant a writ, though amazingly that rule is nowhere written down and the justices could change...

  • Why won't the Supreme Court decide on same-sex marriage?
    Why won't the Supreme Court decide on same-sex marriage?

    Gay rights supporters were simultaneously jubilant and perplexed Monday when the Supreme Court announced that it wouldn't review three decisions by federal appeals courts striking down state bans on same-sex marriage. We share their mixed feelings.

  • The Supreme Court's supremely flawed record

    As a constitutional law professor, I have mixed feelings about the first Monday in October. On the one hand, I look forward to the start of the new Supreme Court term in the same way a baseball fan looks forward to opening day. But I also dread what the court might do.

Comments
Loading