(Excerpts)
During the criminal trial
in a Kentucky state court of petitioner, a black
man, the judge conducted voir dire examination
of the jury venire and excused certain jurors for
cause. The prosecutor then used his peremptory
challenges to strike all four black persons on
the venire, and a jury composed only of white persons
was selected. Defense counsel moved to discharge
the jury on the ground that the prosecutor's removal
of the black veniremen violated petitioner's rights
under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a
jury drawn from a cross section of the community,
and under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection
of the laws. Without expressly ruling on petitioner's
request for a hearing, the trial judge denied the
motion, and the jury ultimately convicted petitioner.
Affirming the conviction, the Kentucky Supreme
Court observed that recently, in another case,
it had relied on Swain v. Alabama, 380
U.S. 202 , and had held that a defendant
alleging lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate
systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from
the venire.
Held:
1. The principle announced in Strauder
v. West Virginia, 100
U.S. 303 , that a State denies a black defendant equal
protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from
which members of his race have been purposefully excluded,
is reaffirmed. Pp. 84-89.
(a) A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed
in whole or in part of persons of his own race. Strauder
v. West Virginia, 100
U.S. 303, 305 .
|
However,
the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the
defendant that the State will not exclude
members of his race from the jury venire
on account of race, or on the false assumption
that members of his race as a group are not
qualified to serve as jurors. By denying
a person participation in jury service on
account of his race, the State also unconstitutionally
discriminates against the excluded juror.
Moreover, selection procedures that purposefully
exclude black persons from juries undermine
public confidence in the fairness of our
system of justice. Pp. 85-88.
[Emphasis Added]
(b) The same equal protection
principles as are applied to determine whether
there is discrimination in selecting the venire
also govern the State's use of peremptory challenges
to strike individual jurors from the petit jury. Although
a prosecutor ordinarily is entitled to exercise peremptory
challenges for any reason, as long as that reason is
related to his view concerning the outcome of the case
to be tried, the Equal Protection Clause forbids the
prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account
of their race or on the assumption that black jurors
as a group will be unable impartially to consider the
State's case against a black defendant. Pp. 88-89.
|