Also known as: race neutral reason · race-neutral reasons · race-neutral explanation · Batson reason · neutral justification
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A justification offered by a party exercising a peremptory challenge after a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in jury selection. The explanation must be facially neutral as to race. A court then determines whether the reason is pretextual and whether purposeful discrimination has been proven.
Raphael Rivera, on trial for robbery, notes that the prosecutor uses peremptory strikes to remove every Black venire member. Rivera makes a prima facie showing of racial discrimination. The prosecutor responds that each struck juror had prior contact with law enforcement through family members. The trial court accepts the explanation and seats the jury without further inquiry into pretext.
Rowan Russell sues Redwood Bank for wrongful foreclosure in federal court. During voir dire the bank strikes two Black prospective jurors. Russell objects and establishes a prima facie case. The bank states that the jurors appeared inattentive during the judge's preliminary instructions. The court must decide whether this explanation masks purposeful discrimination.
Thaddeus Donald Edmonson, a black construction worker, was injured in a jobsite accident at Fort Polk, Louisiana, a federal enclave, when a Leesville Concrete Company employee permitted one of the company's trucks to roll backward and pin him against some construction equipment. Edmonson sued Leesville Concrete Company for negligence in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and invoked his Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury. During voir dire, Leesville used two of its three peremptory challenges authorized by statute to remove black persons from the prospective jury. Edmonson, who is himself black, requested that the District Court require Leesville to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the two jurors, but the District Court denied the request on the ground that Batson does not apply in civil proceedings. As empaneled, the jury included 11 white persons and 1 black person. The jury rendered a verdict for Edmonson, assessing his total damages at $90,000, but attributed 80% of the fault to Edmonson's contributory negligence and awarded him the sum of $18,000. Edmonson appealed, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Batson applies to private litigants in civil trials. The full court then ordered rehearing en banc and affirmed the judgment of the District Court, holding that a private litigant in a civil case can exercise peremptory challenges without accountability for alleged racial classifications. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
View caseRenee Rogers faces criminal charges and objects when the defense uses peremptory strikes to remove all remaining jurors of one race. She shows a statistical pattern of exclusion. The defense offers that each struck juror had expressed hesitation about imposing severe penalties. The trial court evaluates whether the stated concerns are genuine or pretextual.
A defendant or objecting party must first establish a prima facie case by showing that peremptory challenges were exercised against members of a cognizable racial group in a manner that raises an inference of purposeful discrimination. Once that showing is made, the striking party must articulate a race-neutral reason.
No. At the second step the reason need only be facially race-neutral. The persuasiveness of the explanation becomes relevant only at the third step when the court decides whether the reason is pretextual and whether purposeful discrimination has occurred.
Yes. Private litigants in civil cases exercise peremptory challenges that constitute state action because jury selection is a traditional governmental function performed with substantial court participation. Equal protection therefore forbids race-based peremptory strikes in civil litigation as well.
If the striking party fails to offer any race-neutral explanation after a prima facie showing, the court must sustain the objection and disallow the strikes or provide an appropriate remedy such as reseating the jurors.
…challenges to remove black persons from the prospective jury. Edmonson’s motion that Leesville be required to articulate a race-neutral explanation for those challenges was denied, and the resulting jury, which included no black members, returned a verdict unfavorable to Edmonson. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a private…