One of the most intriguing cases on the Supreme Court’s docket this fall is Foster v. Chatman. The procedural setting of the case is complicated, but the core issue comes down to whether the Georgia courts did their job in making sure that the state prosecutor in Mr. Foster’s criminal case did not exercise “peremptory” strikes from the jury pool—these are devices by which either side in a case can remove a set number of would-be jurors from serving, based not on any demonstrated “cause” or “prejudice” on the part of each potential juror, but on a mere hunch or a feeling that the stricken juror would not be good for that lawyer’s side—on the basis of the race of the would-be juror.
The case isn’t intriguing because the issue of striking jurors because of their race is new; the case is intriguing precisely because three decades since the Supreme Court made clear that prosecutors (and the rule has since been extended to all lawyers in all cases) cannot use race as the basis for even a single peremptory challenge (in Batson v. Kentucky), everyone knows that lawyers routinely do use race as a basis for exercising peremptories, and they get away with it. As Linda Greenhouse put it in a recent New York Times piece profiling the Foster case, Batson’s failure in practice is an “open secret.”
How (and Why) Batson Doesn’t Work To Eliminate Race-Based Challenges
Foster is a good, albeit striking (no pun intended) example. The prosecutors in Mr. Foster’s case had identified on paper all the black prospective jurors (and only the black prospective jurors) with the letter “B,” and at one point wrote down that “[i]f it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors [to serve, a particular one] might be ok.” Moreover, the reasons the prosecutors gave when they used peremptory strikes to remove all four black potential jurors who remained at that point might be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high (Mr. Foster was on trial for a capital offense). One black juror was removed because “her age [was] so close to the defendant.” She was 34, and Mr. Foster was 19. Another juror, according to prosecutors trying to explain to the judge that their strikes weren’t based on race, was removed because one of his sons had been convicted of misdemeanor theft, which prosecutors said was “basically the same thing this defendant is charged with” (thereby inclining the juror to empathize with the defendant. The juror’s son had been given a suspended sentence for stealing hubcaps from a car in a parking lot five years earlier. Mr. Foster, as noted earlier, was on trial for capital murder and other alleged crimes.
And so forth. Nor is Foster the only case where Batson’s inherent unworkability is on display. The fundamental problem of enforcing a ban against the use of race is two-fold. First, judges understandably don’t want to denounce as liars and racists lawyers who articulate incredible explanations (unrelated to race) to account for their strikes of minority jurors. Second, it is in the very nature of a peremptory challenge that the “reason” offered can be idiosyncratic (even quirky); if an employer cited superstition as a basis for not hiring a minority applicant, we would more readily reject it as insincere, insofar as businesspeople don’t ordinarily make employment decisions based on superstition. But when a trial lawyer strikes a would-be juror because the juror is wearing red and the trial lawyer lost the last few trials when there were red-clad jurors, it may very well be that the lawyer is in fact motivated by odd intangibles that dominate the culture of trial attorneys.
Although there is broad agreement that Batson’s ban on race isn’t easily enforced, there is no such agreement about what to do to fix the problem. Various Supreme Court Justices (including Thurgood Marshall in Batson itself and Stephen Breyer a decade ago in Miller-El v. Dretke) have argued that it is time for peremptories to go. And it is also true that the Court has made clear that the Constitution does not mandate the availability of peremptory challenges. State legislatures could get rid of them in state court altogether, and Congress (acting under Article I and also under the reconstruction amendments enacted after the Civil War) could probably get rid of them in federal and state courts alike.
Focusing on Jury Service More Generally Beyond Racial Exclusion
But if legislators don’t act, what can the Supreme Court do? It is one thing to say the peremptory challenges aren’t constitutionally mandated, but it is quite another for a Court to say they are not constitutionally permissible. I think this question is made harder by the fact that people don’t broaden the problem of peremptory challenges beyond race (and perhaps gender and, recently, sexual orientation.) To be sure, the Court could ban peremptory challenges altogether on prophylactic grounds to ensure that race isn’t used, but when the Court micromanages criminal procedure for prophylactic reasons, it is often heavily criticized. Think Miranda warnings to ensure no coerced confessions are obtained, or the exclusionary rule to deter police violations of the Fourth Amendment.
If we pulled back from race and prophylaxis and asked, even outside the context of peremptory challenges targeted at particular groups, why anybody, regardless of membership in any particular group, should be stricken from being able to serve on a jury without a good reason, a more fruitful discussion could ensue. I believe (and have written extensively in academic pieces) that jury service has always been understood—in constitutional terms—as political participation akin to voting. Jurors vote—that’s what they do when they decide cases—and the voting-jury service linkage was recognized by the Constitution’s Framers in the 1780s by those responsible for drafting the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and their implementing legislation, and still later by authors of twentieth century amendments that protect various groups against discrimination in voting.
The Framers expected the jury to act as a mediating body to insulate individuals from government overreaching. Coming from a pool of ordinary citizens and owing no financial allegiance to the government, juries had the power to thwart the excesses of overly ambitious government officials. But the jury’s function in the constitutional scheme was not limited to the protection of individual litigants. Rather, the jury was an essential democratic institution because it was a means by which citizens could engage in self-government. As one political essayist at the time of the constitutional ratification wrote: “It is true, the laws are made by the legislature; but the judges and juries, in their interpretations, and in directing the execution of them, have a very expansive influence . . . for changing the nature of government.”
The French political analyst Alexis de Tocqueville and author of the famous tract Democracy in America in the nineteenth century, keenly understood the linkages between jury service and other political participation such as voting. As he noted, “[the jury] puts the real control of affairs into the hands of the ruled, . . . rather than into those of the rulers. . . . The jury system as understood in America seems to me as direct and extreme a consequence of the dogma of the sovereignty of the people as universal suffrage. They are both equally powerful means of making the majority prevail. . . . [T]he jury is above all a political institution.”
In the end, I conclude, a good argument can be made that we should not allow a person to be denied the right to serve on a jury for any reason that would not also suffice as a reason to deny that person the right to vote in an election. If this were the standard we applied—notwithstanding recent restrictions on election participation that have been upheld by various courts—the matter of getting rid of peremptory challenges would be rather simple, just as we no longer allow the franchise to be restricted on grounds that were acceptable in earlier times.
I have no expectations that the Court will use Foster to abolish peremptory challenges; there likely aren’t the votes for that today. But it is my hope that at least some of the Justices will begin to highlight the linkage between jury service and other rights of political participation, most paradigmatically the right to vote in elections, so that we better understand the true stakes as we address the question of how tolerant we should be of dishonest or (at best) ridiculous “reasons” for removing people from bodies that make law by applying it to particular cases.
This is a classic case of a self purported “expert” utilizing an extreme
situation to thereby blanket every other situation as always being
biased. Admittedly, this prosecutor was not only biased, he should have been ordered off the trial because of the ridiculous allegations made but that will never
happen because lawyers act together to protect each others mistakes
while simultaneously acting together to destroy the common law. The problem with these kinds of cases is that courts, judges and “legal professionals” present the decision of this case as though it should apply universally to every situation going forward. What this self acclaimed “law professor” should discuss is that more than 50% of court decisions are null and void by reason of lack of
As has long been recognized, “It is a fundamental precept that federal courts
are courts of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir.1998) (citations omitted).
A federal court cannot assume jurisdiction exists. Rather, the plaintiff is
required to specifically plead adequate facts in its complaint to sufficiently establish the court has jurisdiction. Norton v. Larney, 266 U.S. 511, 515-16 (1925).
A defendant may move for dismissal when a complaint contains a jurisdictional
defect. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).” Of course, this would subtract from the tyranny of the legal profession in which “lawyers” act daily to destroy justice in American
jurisprudence through assumptions. Have you ever seen any state that
requires lawyers to perform BEFORE being paid for services as every other profession does? Why do lawyers get to charge a fee before rendering services which may or may not even constitute Constitutionally effective assistance of counsel?
Throughout this entire article, I have yet to decipher evidence that this court even
acquired subject matter jurisdiction over this particular case and issue. “Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or tat were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside,” Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.
A “void judgment” as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to
actions taken there under, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack. No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then
as though trial and adjudication had never been. FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97. On certiorari this
Court may not review questions of fact. Brown v. Blanchard, 39 Mich 790.
It is not at liberty to determine disputed facts (Hyde v. Nelson, 11 Mich 353), nor
to review the weight of the evidence. Linn v. Roberts, 15 Mich 443; Lynch v. People, 16 Mich 472. Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to get rid of a void judgment, one which there is no evidence to sustain. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich 469. I would strongly suggest that readers of articles written that purport to be critiques of legal issues, should examine the issue and case thoroughly for subject matter jurisdiction before giving credence or credibility to such writers, including myself.
Are you really a lawyer?you have to be kidding writing such garbage.If I was trying a case you’d be near the top of my preemptory challenges.Reason?Stupidity.