## Facts

- Michael Rivera was tried in Illinois state court for first-degree murder.
- During voir dire, the defense used a peremptory challenge to strike prospective juror Deloris Gomez.
- The trial judge denied the strike after finding it impermissibly discriminatory under Batson.
- It was later conceded that Gomez was statutorily qualified, not challengeable for cause, and not claimed to be biased against Rivera.
- Gomez served on the jury and was selected as foreperson.
- Rivera was convicted and sentenced to 85 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires automatic reversal when a trial court, acting in good faith, erroneously denies a defendant’s peremptory challenge and seats a qualified, unbiased juror.
2. Whether an erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge is structural error under federal constitutional law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The Court held that, if the jurors who actually sit are qualified and unbiased, due process does not require automatic reversal based solely on a good-faith, mistaken denial of a peremptory challenge.
- The Court rejected treating this type of error as structural error and allowed states to apply harmless-error review or other state-law remedies.

## Legal Principles

- Peremptory challenges are not required by the Federal Constitution; they exist by statute or rule as a tool to help secure an impartial jury.
- Federal due process protects the right to a fair trial before an impartial jury, not a right to a particular jury-selection mechanism or any particular jury composition.
- Seating a qualified, unbiased juror after the erroneous denial of a peremptory strike does not, without more, violate the Due Process Clause.
- Not every error affecting jury selection is structural; when the resulting jury is impartial, the error may be treated as trial error subject to harmless-error analysis.
- States may decide, as a matter of state law, whether a mistaken denial of a peremptory challenge warrants automatic reversal or is subject to harmless-error review; the Federal Constitution does not impose a uniform remedy.

## Conclusion

Because Rivera was tried by a jury that was conceded to be qualified and unbiased, the Fourteenth Amendment did not require automatic reversal for the trial court’s mistaken denial of a peremptory challenge, and Illinois could treat the error as harmless under its own law.


Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009)