Also known as: race neutral basis · race-neutral · race neutral
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A justification offered by a party for exercising a peremptory challenge that does not depend on the prospective juror's race. After a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in jury selection, the striking party must articulate this justification to the trial court. The court then determines whether the justification is genuine or pretextual.
In Raphael Rivera's criminal trial, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove all Black members of the venire. Rivera made a prima facie showing of racial discrimination. The prosecutor then offered explanations tied to the jurors' occupations and prior answers during voir dire. The trial court evaluated those explanations to decide whether purposeful discrimination had occurred.
Rebecca Ross sued Rocky Mountain Mining in federal court. During jury selection the mining company struck two Black prospective jurors. Ross objected and established a prima facie case. The company responded with reasons based on the jurors' expressed views about workplace safety regulations. The court assessed whether those reasons satisfied the race-neutral requirement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ryan Roberts, a white defendant, objected when the prosecutor struck Black jurors from his panel. He argued the strikes violated equal protection even though he did not share the jurors' race. After the prima facie showing, the prosecutor supplied reasons focused on the jurors' body language and prior employment. The court proceeded to the third step to evaluate the sincerity of those reasons.
Rajesh Rao challenged the prosecutor's removal of several Asian-American jurors in his capital case. Statistical evidence of a pattern of strikes against that group supported the prima facie showing. The prosecutor then provided reasons centered on the jurors' answers about the death penalty. The trial court weighed those reasons against the overall pattern to determine whether discrimination had been proven.
Rhea Reynolds raised a Batson claim in a federal habeas petition after her state conviction. The strikes had occurred before the three-step framework was announced. Because the new rule did not apply retroactively on collateral review, the court did not reach the question whether the prosecutor had supplied adequate race-neutral explanations.
Rita Russell, a member of a religious minority, objected when the prosecutor struck jurors who shared her faith. The prosecutor responded that the strikes rested on the jurors' stated reluctance to serve on long trials. The court treated the explanation as facially neutral and proceeded to assess its credibility under the established framework.
The objecting party must first establish a prima facie case that peremptory challenges were exercised on the basis of race. Once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the striking party to articulate a race-neutral basis for each strike.
Yes. Jury selection in civil litigation is treated as state action because it occurs under court supervision and authority. Private litigants therefore must supply a race-neutral basis when their peremptory strikes are challenged on equal protection grounds.
Any party or struck juror may object. A defendant need not share the excluded juror's race to have standing to challenge the strikes under equal protection principles.
The trial court must determine whether the offered explanation is genuine or merely pretextual. The court evaluates the credibility of the reason in light of all relevant circumstances, including the pattern of strikes and the strength of the prima facie showing.
…to this case necessarily be incompatible with our equal protection cases. Cf. Rogers v. Lodge , 458 U. S. 613, 618 (1982) (race-neutral law that “‘bears more heavily on one race than another’” may violate equal protection) (citation omitted); Castaneda v. Partida , 430 U. S. 482, 492-495 (1977) (grand jury selection). We…