Also known as: neutral explanations
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A justification offered by a party during the second step of the Batson inquiry after a prima facie showing of discriminatory peremptory strikes. The explanation must be facially unrelated to race or gender and connected to the facts of the particular case rather than a bare denial of discriminatory intent.
In a robbery trial, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove all Black members of the venire. After the defendant made a prima facie showing of racial discrimination, the prosecutor stated that each struck juror had prior contact with law enforcement that might create bias. The trial court accepted the explanation as race neutral and allowed the strikes to stand.
A defendant convicted before the Batson decision sought collateral review and argued that the prosecutor had failed to supply neutral explanations for striking Black jurors. The court held that the new requirement for neutral explanations did not apply retroactively on collateral review of final convictions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
In a contract dispute, the private defendant used peremptory challenges to remove two Black prospective jurors. The plaintiff objected and the defendant offered the explanation that the jurors lacked experience with commercial construction projects. The court treated the explanation as race neutral and denied the objection.
During a paternity suit, the state used peremptory challenges to remove all male jurors, explaining that men would be less sympathetic to claims of child support. The defendant objected on equal protection grounds. The court required a gender neutral explanation and found the offered reason insufficient.
In a criminal trial, the defense used peremptory challenges to remove all White members of the venire. The prosecutor objected and the defense offered the explanation that the jurors had ties to law enforcement that could favor the state. The trial court accepted the explanation as race neutral.
The explanation must be facially unrelated to race or gender and tied to the facts of the particular case. A bare denial of discriminatory motive or an assumption that jurors of the defendant's race will favor the defendant is insufficient.
Supporting sources
No. At the second step the explanation need only be facially race or gender neutral. The persuasiveness of the explanation is assessed at the third step when the court decides whether purposeful discrimination has been proven.
Supporting sources
No. The reasons must be those the striking party actually entertained at the time the challenge was exercised. Post hoc justifications supplied by reviewing courts do not meet the second step requirement.
Supporting sources
Yes. Jury selection is a traditional governmental function conducted with significant court participation, so private litigants exercising peremptory challenges are treated as state actors and must supply neutral explanations when discrimination is alleged.
Supporting sources
…purposeful discrimination. Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors. The prosecutor may not rebut the defendant's prima facie case by stating merely that he challenged jurors of the defendant's race on the assumption that they…