Facts
- Larry Joe Powers, a white defendant, was tried in Ohio state court for aggravated murder and related offenses.
- During voir dire, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike seven Black prospective jurors.
- Powers objected, arguing that race-based peremptory strikes violated equal protection under the rule recognized in Batson v. Kentucky.
- The trial court overruled the objections, and Powers was convicted and sentenced to prison.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed further appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a defendant may object to race-based strikes of jurors who are not of the defendant’s race.
Issues
- Whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits prosecutors from using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race regardless of the defendant’s race.
- Whether a criminal defendant has third-party standing to assert the equal protection rights of jurors excluded because of their race.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed in a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.
- The Court held that racial identity between the defendant and excluded jurors is not a precondition to a Batson challenge.
- The Court held that a criminal defendant has standing to raise the equal protection claims of jurors excluded by the prosecution on account of race.
Legal Principles
- The Equal Protection Clause forbids the State from using peremptory challenges to exclude otherwise qualified jurors solely because of race.
- A prospective juror has a right not to be excluded from jury service on account of race, even though no juror has a right to sit on a particular jury.
- Racial discrimination in jury selection injures the defendant by calling the fairness and integrity of the proceeding into question and undermining confidence in the justice system.
- A defendant may assert excluded jurors’ equal protection rights where the defendant suffers a concrete injury from discriminatory selection, the defendant’s interests align with the jurors’ interests, and practical obstacles make direct juror litigation unlikely.
- Race-based peremptory strikes are not justified by claims that they cause no stigma or by arguments that equal application across races makes them permissible.
Conclusion
The Court extended Batson by holding that any criminal defendant, regardless of race, may challenge race-based peremptory strikes and may assert the excluded jurors’ equal protection rights, because discriminatory jury selection harms jurors, defendants, and the legitimacy of the judicial process.