It’s hard to argue against the notion that prosecutors’ use of peremptory challenges just to get blacks off the jury is racist, wrong and offensive. But the problem with Batson was that its rationale relied on a right that the Constitution doesn’t provide and is in direct conflict with a right that it does. There is no constitutional right to be on a jury. The defendant in a criminal case has a right to trial by jury. In other words, the right belongs to the defendant, not the putative jurors struck because of their race.
Most of the time, these two interests align, so it’s not a problem. A black defendant will want black jurors, presuming a shared experience with police and less inclined to be racially antagonistic to the defendant. Whether that ends up being the case is another matter, but that’s the theory. The problem with Batson, however, is that it couldn’t be grounded in the right of a defendant to a jury that “looks like him,” since that meant if the defendant was white, or Hispanic, or Icelandic, the defense could assert a demand for jurors of whatever identity was a issue. That certainly wasn’t the goal. Continue reading
