Facts
- Georgia indicted Thomas McCollum, William Joseph McCollum, and Ella Hampton McCollum (white defendants) for aggravated assault and simple battery arising from an alleged beating of two African American victims.
- A leaflet circulated in the local African American community describing the incident and urging a boycott of defendants’ business.
- Before voir dire, the prosecution moved to prohibit the defense from using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race.
- The State asserted defense counsel had expressed an intent to strike African American jurors because of the case circumstances.
- The State emphasized that, given local demographics and the number of defense peremptory strikes, the defense could remove all African American prospective jurors from the panel.
- The trial court denied the motion, ruling that neither federal nor Georgia law barred criminal defendants from racially discriminatory peremptory strikes; the issue was certified for immediate appeal.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, distinguishing precedent extending Batson to civil litigants.
Issues
- Whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a criminal defendant from exercising peremptory challenges in a purposefully racially discriminatory manner.
- Whether a criminal defendant’s exercise of peremptory challenges constitutes state action for Equal Protection purposes.
- Whether the State has standing to object to a defendant’s racially discriminatory peremptory strikes and to assert the rights of excluded jurors.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed and held that the Constitution prohibits criminal defendants from engaging in purposeful racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges.
- The Court concluded that a defendant’s use of peremptory challenges is attributable to the State because it determines the composition of a governmental body (the jury).
- The Court held the State has third-party standing to raise the Equal Protection rights of excluded jurors because discriminatory jury selection harms the integrity and fairness of the judicial process and excluded jurors face practical barriers to suit.
- The Court required application of the Batson framework to defense strikes: upon a prima facie showing of racial discrimination, the defendant must give race-neutral reasons and the court must rule on purposeful discrimination.
Legal Principles
- Equal Protection forbids purposeful racial discrimination in peremptory challenges regardless of whether the strikes are exercised by the prosecution or the defense.
- Discriminatory peremptory strikes injure excluded jurors and undermine public confidence in the justice system.
- A criminal defendant’s peremptory challenges involve state action because they use governmental authority to select members of a governmental decisionmaking body.
- The State may assert the Equal Protection rights of excluded jurors to protect the integrity of its courts and because jurors face significant obstacles to litigating such claims.
- Batson’s burden-shifting procedure applies to criminal defendants’ peremptory challenges.
Conclusion
The Court held that criminal defendants may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of race, that such strikes constitute state action subject to the Equal Protection Clause, and that the State may object and trigger Batson’s requirement of race-neutral explanations.