Also known as: race-neutral explanation · sex-neutral explanation · race or sex neutral explanation · neutral explanation · race-neutral justification
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A justification a party must articulate for exercising peremptory challenges after an opponent makes a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination on the basis of race or sex. The explanation must be facially unrelated to race or sex and must survive judicial scrutiny for pretext.
In a criminal trial, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove every Black venire member. The defendant made a prima facie showing of racial discrimination. The prosecutor then offered an explanation that each struck juror had prior contact with law enforcement. The trial court evaluated whether that explanation was genuine and not a pretext for race.
In a contract dispute between a Black plaintiff and a concrete company, the defense used two of its three peremptory challenges to strike Black venire members. The plaintiff objected and demanded a race-neutral explanation. The company offered reasons tied to the jurors' answers during voir dire. The court assessed whether those reasons satisfied the equal-protection requirement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A defendant convicted before the neutral-explanation requirement was announced sought to apply the new rule on collateral review. The court considered whether the requirement was a watershed rule of criminal procedure. Because the rule altered only the method of proving discrimination rather than the underlying right, it was not applied retroactively.
In a state paternity proceeding, the government used peremptory challenges to remove all male jurors. The defendant objected that the strikes rested on sex. The state offered an explanation that the removed jurors lacked experience with child-rearing issues. The court determined whether the explanation was sex-neutral and credible.
In a criminal prosecution, the defense used peremptory challenges to remove every White venire member. The prosecutor objected that the strikes were racially motivated. The defense offered reasons based on the jurors' occupations and prior jury service. The trial court evaluated whether those reasons were race-neutral and not pretextual.
A party must provide the explanation once the opponent establishes a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. The showing can rest on a pattern of strikes against members of a protected group combined with other relevant circumstances. The trial court then requires the striking party to articulate a facially neutral reason.
Supporting sources
Yes. Private litigants in civil cases exercise peremptory challenges as state actors because jury selection is a traditional governmental function conducted under court supervision. Equal-protection limits therefore require a race- or sex-neutral explanation when a prima facie case is made.
Supporting sources
An explanation is pretextual when it is not credible or when similarly situated jurors of a different race or sex were treated differently. Courts compare the stated reason against the record of voir dire answers and the pattern of strikes actually exercised. A facially neutral reason that masks discriminatory intent fails the requirement.
Supporting sources
A party may rely on such traits only if they are applied consistently and are not a proxy for race or sex. Retaining jurors of one sex who share the same trait while striking jurors of the other sex suggests pretext. The trial court must assess whether the reason is genuine and nondiscriminatory.
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…