edmonson
leesville
concrete
argued
january
decided
june
petitioner
edmonson
sued
respondent
leesville
concrete
district
alleging
leesville
negligence
caused
personal
injury
voir
dire
leesville
used
two
three
peremptory
challenges
authorized
statute
remove
black
persons
prospective
jury
citing
batson
kentucky
edmonson
black
requested
require
leesville
articulate
explanation
peremptory
strikes
refused
ground
batson
apply
civil
proceedings
impaneled
jury
consisted
white
persons
black
rendered
verdict
unfavorable
edmonson
appeals
affirmed
holding
private
litigant
civil
case
exercise
peremptory
challenges
without
accountability
alleged
racial
classifications
held
private
litigant
civil
case
may
use
peremptory
challenges
exclude
jurors
account
race
pp
exclusion
potential
jurors
civil
case
violates
excluded
persons
equal
protection
rights
powers
ohio
although
conduct
private
parties
lies
beyond
constitution
scope
instances
leesville
exercise
peremptory
challenges
pursuant
course
state
action
therefore
subject
constitutional
requirements
analytical
framework
set
forth
lugar
edmondson
oil
first
claimed
constitutional
deprivation
results
exercise
right
privilege
source
state
authority
since
leesville
able
engage
alleged
discriminatory
acts
without
authorizes
use
peremptory
challenges
civil
cases
second
leesville
must
fairness
deemed
government
actor
use
peremptory
challenges
leesville
made
extensive
use
government
procedures
overt
significant
assistance
government
see
tulsa
professional
collection
services
pope
peremptory
challenges
utility
outside
jury
trial
system
created
governed
elaborate
set
statutory
provisions
administered
solely
government
officials
including
trial
judge
state
actor
exercises
substantial
control
voir
dire
effects
final
practical
denial
excluded
individual
opportunity
serve
petit
jury
discharging
moreover
action
question
involves
performance
traditional
governmental
function
see
terry
adams
since
peremptory
challenge
used
selecting
jury
entity
quintessential
governmental
body
attributes
private
actor
furthermore
injury
allegedly
caused
leesville
use
peremptory
challenges
aggravated
unique
way
incidents
governmental
authority
see
shelley
kramer
since
courtroom
real
expression
government
constitutional
authority
racial
exclusion
within
confines
compounds
racial
insult
inherent
judging
citizen
color
skin
pp
private
civil
litigant
may
raise
equal
protection
claim
person
opposing
party
excluded
jury
service
account
race
criminal
context
see
powers
supra
three
requirements
standing
satisfied
civil
context
first
reason
believe
daunting
barriers
suit
excluded
criminal
juror
see
less
imposing
simply
person
excluded
civil
jury
service
second
relation
excluded
venireperson
litigant
challenging
exclusion
close
civil
criminal
context
see
third
civil
litigant
demonstrate
suffered
concrete
redressable
injury
exclusion
jurors
account
race
racial
discrimination
jury
selection
casts
doubt
integrity
judicial
process
places
fairness
proceeding
doubt
see
pp
case
remanded
determination
whether
edmonson
established
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
approach
set
forth
batson
supra
leesville
required
offer
explanations
peremptory
challenges
kennedy
delivered
opinion
white
marshall
blackmun
stevens
souter
joined
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
joined
post
scalia
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
james
doyle
argued
cause
filed
brief
petitioner
john
baker
argued
cause
respondent
brief
john
honeycutt
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
american
civil
liberties
union
steven
shapiro
john
powell
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
et
al
julius
levonne
chambers
eric
schnapper
samuel
rabinove
deval
patrick
marc
goodheart
robert
mullen
david
tatel
norman
redlich
thomas
henderson
richard
seymour
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
defense
research
institute
jeanmarie
lococo
john
weigel
dixie
insurance
suzanne
saunders
louisiana
association
defense
counsel
joseph
ward
wood
brown
iii
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
must
decide
case
us
whether
private
litigant
civil
case
may
use
peremptory
challenges
exclude
jurors
account
race
recognizing
impropriety
racial
bias
courtroom
hold
exclusion
violates
equal
protection
rights
challenged
jurors
civil
case
originated
district
apply
equal
protection
component
fifth
amendment
due
process
clause
see
bolling
sharpe
thaddeus
donald
edmonson
construction
worker
injured
accident
fort
polk
louisiana
federal
enclave
edmonson
sued
leesville
concrete
company
negligence
district
western
district
louisiana
claiming
leesville
employee
permitted
one
company
trucks
roll
backward
pin
construction
equipment
edmonson
invoked
seventh
amendment
right
trial
jury
voir
dire
leesville
used
two
three
peremptory
challenges
authorized
statute
remove
black
persons
prospective
jury
citing
decision
batson
kentucky
edmonson
black
requested
district
require
leesville
articulate
explanation
striking
two
jurors
district
denied
request
ground
batson
apply
civil
proceedings
impaneled
jury
included
white
persons
black
person
jury
rendered
verdict
edmonson
assessing
total
damages
also
attributed
fault
edmonson
contributory
negligence
however
awarded
sum
edmonson
appealed
divided
panel
appeals
fifth
circuit
reversed
holding
opinion
batson
applies
private
attorney
representing
private
litigant
peremptory
challenges
may
used
civil
trial
purpose
excluding
jurors
basis
race
appeals
panel
held
private
parties
become
state
actors
exercise
peremptory
challenges
limit
batson
criminal
cases
betray
batson
fundamental
principle
state
use
toleration
approval
peremptory
challenges
based
race
violates
equal
protection
clause
panel
remanded
trial
consider
whether
edmonson
established
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
batson
full
ordered
rehearing
en
banc
divided
en
banc
panel
affirmed
judgment
district
holding
private
litigant
civil
case
exercise
peremptory
challenges
without
accountability
alleged
racial
classifications
concluded
use
peremptories
private
litigants
constitute
state
action
result
implicate
constitutional
guarantees
dissent
reiterated
arguments
vacated
panel
opinion
courts
appeals
divided
issue
see
dunham
frank
nursery
crafts
private
litigant
may
use
peremptory
challenges
exclude
venirepersons
account
race
fludd
dykes
cf
dias
sky
chefs
corporation
may
raise
objection
civil
trial
de
gross
government
may
raise
objection
criminal
case
rehearing
en
banc
granted
reynolds
little
rock
government
involved
civil
litigation
may
use
peremptory
challenges
racially
discriminatory
manner
granted
certiorari
reverse
appeals
ii
powers
ohio
held
criminal
defendant
regardless
race
may
object
prosecutor
exclusion
persons
petit
jury
conclusion
rested
analysis
first
following
opinions
batson
carter
jury
commission
greene
county
made
clear
prosecutor
peremptory
challenge
violates
equal
protection
rights
excluded
jury
service
second
relied
rules
standing
hold
defendant
may
raise
excluded
jurors
equal
protection
rights
powers
relied
upon
century
jurisprudence
dedicated
elimination
race
prejudice
within
jury
selection
process
see
batson
supra
swain
alabama
carter
supra
neal
delaware
strauder
west
virginia
decisions
part
directed
discrimination
prosecutor
government
officials
context
criminal
proceedings
intimated
race
discrimination
permissible
civil
proceedings
see
thiel
southern
pacific
indeed
discrimination
basis
race
selecting
jury
civil
proceeding
harms
excluded
juror
less
discrimination
criminal
trial
see
either
case
race
sole
reason
denying
excluded
venireperson
honor
privilege
participating
system
justice
act
violates
constitution
committed
government
official
however
answer
question
whether
act
offends
constitutional
guarantees
committed
private
litigant
attorney
constitution
protections
individual
liberty
equal
protection
apply
general
action
government
national
collegiate
athletic
assn
tarkanian
racial
discrimination
though
invidious
contexts
violates
constitution
may
attributed
state
action
moose
lodge
irvis
thus
legality
exclusion
issue
turns
extent
litigant
civil
case
may
subject
constitution
restrictions
constitution
structures
national
government
confines
actions
regard
certain
individual
liberties
specified
matters
confines
actions
exceptions
provisions
thirteenth
amendment
constitutional
guarantees
individual
liberty
equal
protection
apply
actions
private
entities
tarkanian
supra
flagg
bros
brooks
fundamental
limitation
scope
constitutional
guarantees
preserves
area
individual
freedom
limiting
reach
federal
law
avoids
imposing
state
agencies
officials
responsibility
conduct
fairly
blamed
lugar
edmondson
oil
one
great
object
constitution
permit
citizens
structure
private
relations
choose
subject
constraints
statutory
decisional
law
implement
principles
courts
must
consider
time
time
governmental
sphere
ends
private
sphere
begins
although
conduct
private
parties
lies
beyond
constitution
scope
instances
governmental
authority
may
dominate
activity
extent
participants
must
deemed
act
authority
government
result
subject
constitutional
constraints
jurisprudence
state
action
explores
essential
dichotomy
private
sphere
public
sphere
attendant
constitutional
obligations
moose
lodge
supra
begin
discussion
within
framework
state
action
analysis
set
forth
lugar
supra
considered
state
action
question
context
due
process
challenge
state
procedure
allowing
private
parties
obtain
prejudgment
attachments
asked
first
whether
claimed
constitutional
deprivation
resulted
exercise
right
privilege
source
state
authority
second
whether
private
party
charged
deprivation
described
fairness
state
actor
question
first
part
lugar
inquiry
satisfied
nature
peremptory
challenges
significance
outside
law
sole
purpose
permit
litigants
assist
government
selection
impartial
trier
fact
recognized
value
peremptory
challenges
regard
particularly
criminal
context
see
batson
constitutional
obligation
allow
ross
oklahoma
stilson
peremptory
challenges
permitted
government
statute
decisional
law
deems
appropriate
allow
parties
exclude
given
number
persons
otherwise
satisfy
requirements
service
petit
jury
legislative
authorizations
well
limitations
use
peremptory
challenges
date
far
back
founding
republic
common
law
origins
peremptories
predate
see
holland
illinois
swain
today
jurisdictions
statutes
rules
make
limited
number
peremptory
challenges
available
parties
civil
criminal
proceedings
case
us
challenges
exercised
federal
statute
provides
inter
alia
civil
cases
party
shall
entitled
three
peremptory
challenges
several
defendants
several
plaintiffs
may
considered
single
party
purposes
making
challenges
may
allow
additional
peremptory
challenges
permit
exercised
separately
jointly
given
statutory
authorization
challenges
exercised
case
clear
remainder
state
action
analysis
centers
around
second
part
lugar
test
whether
private
litigant
fairness
must
deemed
government
actor
use
peremptory
challenges
although
recognized
aspect
analysis
often
inquiry
see
lugar
supra
cases
disclose
certain
principles
general
application
precedents
establish
determining
whether
particular
action
course
conduct
governmental
character
relevant
examine
following
extent
actor
relies
governmental
assistance
benefits
see
tulsa
professional
collection
services
pope
burton
wilmington
parking
authority
whether
actor
performing
traditional
governmental
function
see
terry
adams
marsh
alabama
cf
san
francisco
arts
athletics
olympic
committee
whether
injury
caused
aggravated
unique
way
incidents
governmental
authority
see
shelley
kraemer
based
application
three
principles
circumstances
hold
exercise
peremptory
challenges
defendant
district
pursuant
course
state
action
although
private
use
private
remedies
procedures
rise
level
state
action
tulsa
professional
supra
cases
found
state
action
private
parties
make
extensive
use
state
procedures
overt
significant
assistance
state
officials
see
lugar
edmondson
oil
sniadach
family
finance
disputed
without
overt
significant
participation
government
peremptory
challenge
system
well
jury
trial
system
part
simply
exist
discussed
peremptory
challenges
utility
outside
jury
system
system
government
alone
administers
federal
system
congress
established
qualifications
jury
service
see
outlined
procedures
jurors
selected
end
district
federal
system
must
adopt
plan
locating
summoning
eligible
prospective
jurors
see
jury
plan
district
western
district
louisiana
file
administrative
office
courts
plan
trial
procedures
must
implement
statutory
policies
random
juror
selection
fair
community
nonexclusion
account
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
economic
status
statutes
prescribe
many
details
jury
plan
defining
jury
wheel
voter
lists
jury
commissions
statute
also
authorizes
establishment
procedures
assignment
grand
petit
juries
lawful
excuse
jury
service
outset
selection
process
prospective
jurors
must
complete
jury
qualification
forms
prescribed
administrative
office
courts
see
failure
may
result
fines
imprisonment
might
willful
misrepresentation
material
fact
answering
question
form
ibid
typical
case
counsel
receive
forms
rely
exercising
peremptory
strikes
see
bermant
jury
selection
procedures
district
courts
federal
judicial
center
clerk
district
federal
official
summons
potential
jurors
employment
pursuits
required
travel
courthouse
must
report
juror
lounges
assembly
rooms
courtrooms
direction
officers
whether
selected
jury
panel
summoned
jurors
receive
per
diem
fixed
statute
service
trial
judge
exercises
substantial
control
voir
dire
federal
system
see
judge
determines
range
information
may
discovered
prospective
juror
affects
exercise
challenges
cause
peremptory
challenges
cases
judges
may
even
conduct
entire
voir
dire
common
practice
district
instant
case
tried
see
louisiana
rules
local
rule
wd
la
judge
oversees
exclusion
jurors
cause
way
determining
jurors
remain
eligible
exercise
peremptory
strikes
cases
involving
multiple
parties
trial
judge
decides
peremptory
challenges
shall
allocated
among
lawyer
exercises
peremptory
challenge
judge
advises
juror
excused
outlined
private
party
exercise
peremptory
challenges
absent
overt
significant
assistance
government
summons
jurors
constrains
freedom
movement
subjects
public
scrutiny
examination
party
exercises
challenge
invokes
formal
authority
must
discharge
prospective
juror
thus
effecting
final
practical
denial
excluded
individual
opportunity
serve
petit
jury
virginia
rives
without
direct
indispensable
participation
judge
beyond
question
state
actor
peremptory
challenge
system
serve
purpose
enforcing
discriminatory
peremptory
challenge
made
party
biased
act
elected
place
power
property
prestige
behind
alleged
discrimination
burton
wilmington
parking
authority
government
create
legal
framework
governing
challenged
conduct
national
collegiate
athletic
significant
way
involved
invidious
discrimination
determining
leesville
state
actor
status
next
consider
whether
action
question
involves
performance
traditional
function
government
traditional
function
government
evident
peremptory
challenge
used
selecting
entity
quintessential
governmental
body
attributes
private
actor
jury
exercises
power
government
confers
jurisdiction
noted
powers
jury
system
performs
critical
governmental
functions
guarding
rights
litigants
insur
ing
continued
acceptance
laws
people
federal
system
constitution
commits
trial
facts
civil
cause
jury
either
party
cause
invoke
seventh
amendment
right
jury
becomes
principal
factfinder
charged
weighing
evidence
judging
credibility
witnesses
reaching
verdict
jury
factual
determinations
general
rule
final
basham
pennsylvania
civil
cases
noted
earlier
term
jury
weigh
gravity
wrong
determine
degree
government
interest
punishing
deterring
willful
misconduct
see
pacific
mut
life
ins
haslip
judgment
based
upon
civil
verdict
may
preclusive
issues
later
case
even
parties
differ
see
allen
mccurry
jurisdictions
true
verdict
incorporated
judgment
enforceable
traditional
functions
government
select
private
group
beyond
reach
constitution
government
confers
private
body
power
choose
government
employees
officials
private
body
bound
constitutional
mandate
cf
tarkanian
kohn
least
plurality
recognized
principle
terry
adams
found
state
action
scheme
private
organization
known
jaybird
democratic
association
conducted
elections
select
candidates
run
democratic
primary
elections
ford
bend
county
texas
jaybird
candidate
certain
win
democratic
primary
democratic
candidate
certain
win
general
election
justice
clark
concurring
opinion
drew
smith
allwright
principle
part
machinery
choosing
officials
becomes
subject
constitution
constraints
terry
supra
concurring
opinion
concluded
hen
state
structures
electoral
apparatus
form
devolves
upon
political
organization
uncontested
choice
public
officials
organization
whatever
disguise
takes
attributes
government
draw
constitution
safeguards
play
find
respondent
reliance
polk
county
dodson
unavailing
case
held
public
defender
state
actor
general
representation
criminal
defendant
even
though
may
performance
official
duties
see
branti
finkel
recognizing
employment
relation
public
defender
government
noted
relation
otherwise
adversarial
nature
defense
lawyer
nature
function
servant
administrative
superior
held
standards
competence
integrity
private
lawyer
public
defender
works
canons
professional
responsibility
mandate
exercise
independent
judgment
behalf
client
ordinary
context
civil
litigation
government
party
adversarial
relation
exist
government
private
litigant
jury
selection
process
government
private
litigants
work
end
government
employee
deemed
private
actor
purpose
functions
dodson
private
entity
becomes
government
actor
limited
purpose
using
peremptories
jury
selection
selection
jurors
represents
unique
governmental
function
delegated
private
litigants
government
attributable
government
purposes
invoking
constitutional
protections
discrimination
reason
race
decision
west
atkins
provides
illustration
held
private
physician
contracted
state
prison
attend
inmates
medical
needs
state
actor
regular
state
payroll
held
function
within
state
system
precise
terms
employment
determined
whether
actions
fairly
attributed
state
noted
state
law
medical
care
west
receive
injury
provided
state
doctor
atkins
misused
power
demonstrating
deliberate
indifference
west
serious
medical
needs
resultant
deprivation
caused
sense
relevant
state
action
inquiry
state
exercise
right
punish
west
incarceration
deny
venue
independent
state
obtain
needed
medical
care
finally
note
injury
caused
discrimination
made
severe
government
permits
occur
within
courthouse
places
real
expression
constitutional
authority
government
courtroom
law
unfolds
within
courtroom
government
invokes
laws
determine
rights
stand
full
view
public
litigants
press
cases
witnesses
give
testimony
juries
render
verdicts
judges
act
utmost
care
ensure
justice
done
race
discrimination
within
courtroom
raises
serious
questions
fairness
proceedings
conducted
racial
bias
mars
integrity
judicial
system
prevents
idea
democratic
government
becoming
reality
rose
mitchell
smith
texas
many
times
addressed
problem
racial
bias
system
justice
questioned
premise
racial
discrimination
qualification
selection
jurors
offends
dignity
persons
integrity
courts
powers
permit
racial
exclusion
official
forum
compounds
racial
insult
inherent
judging
citizen
color
skin
held
civil
trial
exclusion
account
race
violates
prospective
juror
equal
protection
rights
consider
whether
opposing
litigant
may
raise
excluded
person
rights
behalf
noted
powers
ordinary
course
litigant
must
assert
legal
rights
interests
rest
claim
relief
legal
rights
interests
third
parties
also
noted
however
fundamental
restriction
judicial
authority
admits
certain
limited
exceptions
litigant
may
raise
claim
behalf
third
party
litigant
demonstrate
suffered
concrete
redressable
injury
close
relation
third
party
exists
hindrance
third
party
ability
protect
interests
three
requirements
standing
held
satisfied
criminal
context
satisfied
civil
context
well
conclusion
powers
persons
excluded
jury
service
unable
protect
rights
applies
equal
force
civil
trial
individual
jurors
subjected
peremptory
racial
exclusion
right
bring
suit
behalf
barriers
suit
excluded
juror
daunting
reason
believe
barriers
less
imposing
simply
person
excluded
jury
service
civil
proceeding
likewise
find
relation
excluded
venireperson
litigant
challenging
exclusion
close
civil
context
criminal
trial
whether
civil
criminal
proceeding
voir
dire
permits
party
establish
relation
bond
trust
jurors
relation
continues
throughout
entire
trial
exclusion
juror
basis
race
severs
relation
invidious
way
believe
issue
warrants
consideration
case
whether
civil
litigant
demonstrate
sufficient
interest
challenging
exclusion
jurors
account
race
powers
held
discriminatory
use
peremptory
challenges
prosecution
causes
criminal
defendant
cognizable
injury
defendant
concrete
interest
challenging
practice
see
allen
hardy
recognizing
defendant
interest
neutral
jury
selection
procedures
individual
jurors
dismissed
prosecution
may
predisposed
favor
defendant
true
jurors
might
excused
cause
rather
racial
discrimination
selection
jurors
casts
doubt
integrity
judicial
process
rose
mitchell
supra
places
fairness
criminal
proceeding
doubt
may
true
role
litigants
determining
jury
composition
provides
one
reason
wide
acceptance
jury
system
verdicts
race
stereotypes
price
acceptance
jury
panel
fair
price
high
meet
standard
constitution
means
exist
litigants
satisfy
jury
impartiality
without
using
skin
color
test
society
continue
progress
multiracial
democracy
must
recognize
automatic
invocation
race
stereotypes
retards
progress
causes
continued
hurt
injury
dispassionate
analysis
special
distinction
law
dispels
fears
preconceptions
respecting
racial
attitudes
quiet
rationality
courtroom
makes
appropriate
place
confront
fears
hostility
means
use
offensive
stereotypes
whether
race
generality
employed
litigants
challenge
potential
juror
derives
open
hostility
hidden
unarticulated
fear
neither
motive
entitles
litigant
cause
injury
excused
juror
litigant
believes
prospective
juror
harbors
biases
instincts
issue
explored
rational
way
consists
respect
dignity
persons
without
use
classifications
based
ancestry
skin
color
iii
remains
consider
whether
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
established
case
us
requiring
leesville
offer
explanations
peremptory
challenges
batson
held
determining
whether
prima
facie
case
established
requires
consideration
relevant
circumstances
including
whether
pattern
strikes
members
particular
race
approach
applies
civil
context
leave
trial
courts
first
instance
develop
evidentiary
rules
implementing
decision
judgment
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
justice
chief
justice
justice
scalia
join
dissenting
concludes
action
private
attorney
exercising
peremptory
challenge
attributable
government
therefore
may
compose
constitutional
violation
conclusion
based
little
challenge
occurs
course
trial
everything
happens
courtroom
state
action
trial
particularly
civil
trial
design
largely
stage
private
parties
may
act
forum
resolve
disputes
peaceful
ordered
manner
government
erects
platform
thereby
become
responsible
occurs
upon
much
like
eliminate
completely
courtroom
specter
racial
discrimination
constitution
sweep
broadly
believe
peremptory
strike
private
litigant
fundamentally
matter
private
choice
state
action
dissent
order
establish
constitutional
violation
edmonson
must
first
demonstrate
leesville
use
peremptory
challenge
fairly
attributed
government
unfortunately
cases
deciding
private
action
might
deemed
state
model
consistency
perhaps
state
action
determination
closely
tied
framework
peculiar
facts
circumstances
present
see
burton
wilmington
parking
authority
whatever
reason
despite
confusion
coherent
principle
emerged
stated
rule
various
ways
base
constitutional
standards
invoked
said
government
responsible
specific
conduct
plaintiff
complains
blum
yaretsky
constitutional
liability
attaches
wrongdoers
carry
badge
authority
government
represent
capacity
national
collegiate
athletic
assn
tarkanian
quoting
monroe
pape
concludes
standard
met
present
case
rests
conclusion
primarily
two
empirical
assertions
first
private
parties
use
peremptory
challenges
overt
significant
participation
government
ante
second
use
peremptory
challenge
private
party
involves
performance
traditional
function
government
ante
neither
assertions
correct
begins
perfectly
accurate
definition
peremptory
challenge
peremptory
challenges
allow
parties
exclude
given
number
persons
otherwise
satisfy
requirements
service
petit
jury
ante
description
worth
careful
analysis
belies
later
conclusions
peremptory
peremptory
challenge
allow
parties
case
private
parties
exclude
potential
jurors
nature
peremptory
exercise
left
wholly
within
discretion
litigant
purpose
longstanding
practice
establish
party
arbitrary
capricious
species
challenge
whereby
sudden
impressions
unaccountable
prejudices
apt
conceive
upon
bare
looks
gestures
another
may
acted
upon
lewis
quoting
blackstone
commentaries
allowing
litigant
strike
jurors
even
subtle
discerned
biases
peremptory
challenge
fosters
perception
reality
impartial
jury
ibid
hayes
missouri
swain
alabama
holland
illinois
criminal
civil
trials
peremptory
challenge
mechanism
exercise
private
choice
pursuit
fairness
peremptory
design
enclave
private
action
proceeding
amasses
much
ostensible
evidence
federal
government
overt
significant
participation
peremptory
process
see
ante
evidence
irrelevant
issue
hand
bulk
practices
describes
establishment
qualifications
jury
service
location
summoning
prospective
jurors
jury
wheel
voter
lists
jury
qualification
forms
per
diem
jury
service
independent
statutory
entitlement
peremptory
strikes
use
government
action
furtherance
government
distinct
obligation
provide
qualified
jury
government
things
even
peremptory
challenges
activity
well
trial
judge
control
voir
dire
see
ante
merely
prerequisite
use
peremptory
challenge
constitute
participation
challenge
actions
may
necessary
peremptory
challenge
sense
challenge
without
venire
select
makes
challenge
state
action
building
roads
provision
public
transportation
makes
state
action
riding
bus
entirety
government
actual
participation
peremptory
process
boils
single
fact
lawyer
exercises
peremptory
challenge
judge
advises
juror
excused
ibid
significant
participation
judge
action
advising
juror
excused
state
action
sure
however
de
minimis
far
cases
required
order
hold
government
responsible
private
action
find
private
actors
represent
government
see
blum
supra
tarkanian
supra
government
normally
held
responsible
private
decision
exercised
coercive
power
provided
significant
encouragement
either
overt
covert
choice
must
law
deemed
state
blum
supra
initial
matter
judge
encourage
use
peremptory
challenge
decision
strike
juror
entirely
litigant
reasons
consequence
judge
attorney
strikes
judge
little
acquiesce
decision
excusing
juror
point
fact
government
virtually
role
use
peremptory
challenges
indeed
jurisdictions
consent
parties
voir
dire
jury
selection
may
take
place
absence
personnel
see
haith
ed
aff
per
curiam
state
eberhardt
ohio
misc
alleged
state
action
far
cry
found
example
shelley
kraemer
case
state
courts
called
upon
enforce
racially
restrictive
covenants
sellers
real
property
wish
discriminate
coercive
power
state
necessary
order
enforce
private
choice
created
covenants
ut
active
intervention
state
courts
supported
full
panoply
state
power
petitioners
free
occupy
properties
question
without
restraint
moreover
courts
shelley
asked
enforce
facially
discriminatory
contract
contrast
peremptory
challenges
exercised
without
reason
stated
without
inquiry
swain
supra
judge
significantly
encourage
discrimination
mere
act
excusing
juror
response
unexplained
request
another
important
distinction
shelley
case
state
courts
shelley
used
coercive
force
impose
conformance
parties
wish
discriminate
enforcement
peremptory
challenges
hand
compel
anyone
discriminate
discrimination
wholly
matter
private
choice
see
goldwasser
limiting
criminal
defendant
use
peremptory
challenges
symmetry
jury
criminal
trial
harv
rev
judicial
acquiescence
convert
private
choice
state
see
blum
kind
significant
involvement
found
tulsa
professional
collection
services
pope
concluded
actions
executrix
estate
providing
notice
creditors
might
file
claims
fairly
attributed
state
state
involvement
notice
process
said
pervasive
substantial
particular
state
statute
directed
executrix
publish
notice
addition
district
case
reinforced
statutory
command
order
expressly
requiring
executrix
immediately
give
notice
creditors
ibid
notice
encouraged
state
positively
required
comparable
state
involvement
one
compelled
government
action
use
peremptory
challenge
let
alone
use
racially
discriminatory
way
relies
also
burton
wilmington
parking
authority
see
ante
decision
case
depended
perceived
symbiotic
relationship
restaurant
state
parking
authority
leased
space
public
building
state
far
insinuated
position
interdependence
restaurant
recognized
joint
participant
challenged
activity
burton
supra
among
peculiar
facts
circumstances
leading
conclusion
state
stood
profit
restaurant
discrimination
shown
government
involvement
use
peremptory
challenges
falls
far
short
interdependence
joint
participation
whatever
continuing
vitality
burton
beyond
facts
see
jackson
metropolitan
edison
support
conclusion
jackson
appropriate
analogy
case
metropolitan
edison
terminated
jackson
electrical
service
authority
granted
state
pursuant
procedure
approved
state
utility
commission
nonetheless
held
jackson
challenge
termination
procedure
due
process
grounds
termination
state
action
state
done
nothing
encourage
particular
termination
practice
approval
state
utility
commission
request
regulated
utility
commission
put
weight
side
proposed
practice
ordering
transmute
practice
initiated
utility
approved
commission
state
action
respondent
exercise
choice
allowed
state
law
initiative
comes
state
make
action
state
action
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
emphasis
added
omitted
effect
flagg
brooks
case
warehouseman
proposed
sale
goods
entrusted
storage
pursuant
new
york
uniform
commercial
code
fairly
attributable
state
held
state
new
york
way
responsible
flagg
brothers
decision
decision
state
permits
compel
threaten
sell
respondents
belongings
similarly
absence
compulsion
least
encouragement
government
use
peremptory
challenges
government
responsible
essential
nature
peremptory
challenge
one
exercised
without
reason
stated
without
inquiry
without
subject
control
swain
government
neither
encourages
approves
challenges
accordingly
overt
significant
participation
government
errs
also
concludes
exercise
peremptory
challenge
traditional
government
function
definition
peremptory
challenge
asserts
correctly
jurors
struck
via
peremptories
otherwise
satisfy
requirements
service
petit
jury
ante
whatever
reason
private
litigant
may
using
peremptory
challenge
government
reason
government
otherwise
establishes
requirements
jury
service
leaving
private
litigant
unfettered
discretion
use
strike
reason
part
government
function
establishing
requirements
jury
service
peremptory
challenges
exercised
party
selection
jurors
rejection
aimed
disqualification
exercised
upon
qualified
jurors
matter
favor
challenger
lincoln
abbott
civil
jury
trials
ed
quoting
lake
superior
iron
reason
incorrect
inconsistent
definition
peremptory
challenge
says
jury
selection
process
civil
trial
government
private
litigants
work
end
see
ante
also
incorrect
says
litigant
exercising
peremptory
challenge
performing
traditional
function
government
see
ante
peremptory
challenge
practice
ancient
origin
part
common
law
heritage
criminal
trials
see
swain
supra
tracing
history
holland
congress
imported
tradition
federal
civil
trials
see
ch
stat
swain
practice
unrestrained
private
choice
selection
civil
juries
even
older
however
peremptory
challenges
civil
trials
common
law
struck
jury
system
allowed
side
criminal
civil
trials
strike
alternately
without
explanation
fixed
number
jurors
see
citing
proffatt
trial
jury
busch
law
tactics
jury
trials
peremptory
challenges
traditional
government
function
tradition
one
unguided
private
choice
may
correct
ere
peremptory
challenges
entire
process
determining
serve
jury
constitut
state
action
ante
peremptory
challenges
always
peremptory
challenge
forms
part
government
responsibility
selecting
jury
peremptory
challenge
private
litigant
meet
standard
traditional
government
function
beyond
misstated
law
cites
terry
adams
marsh
alabama
proposition
state
action
may
imputed
one
carries
traditional
governmental
function
ante
cases
held
private
control
certain
core
government
activities
rendered
private
action
attributable
state
terry
activity
private
primary
election
effectively
determined
outcome
county
general
elections
marsh
company
owned
town
attempted
prohibit
sidewalks
certain
protected
speech
flagg
supra
reviewed
cases
found
state
action
exercise
certain
public
functions
private
parties
see
reviewing
terry
marsh
smith
allwright
nixon
condon
explained
government
functions
cases
one
thing
common
exclusivity
public
function
doctrine
requires
private
actor
exercise
power
traditionally
exclusively
reserved
state
quoting
jackson
order
constitute
state
action
doctrine
private
conduct
must
comprise
something
government
traditionally
something
government
traditionally
even
one
fairly
characterize
use
peremptory
strike
performance
traditional
government
function
jury
selection
never
exclusively
function
government
select
juries
peremptory
strikes
older
republic
west
atkins
contrary
seeks
derive
case
rule
one
serve
important
function
within
government
even
government
employee
thereby
state
actor
see
ante
even
law
help
position
exercise
peremptory
challenge
important
government
function
government
function
event
west
stand
broad
proposition
doctor
case
contract
state
provide
services
state
important
state
hired
doctor
order
fulfill
state
constitutional
obligation
attend
necessary
medical
care
prison
inmates
doctor
relation
state
state
responsibility
went
beyond
mere
performance
important
job
present
case
closer
jackson
supra
kohn
terry
marsh
west
former
cases
alleged
state
activities
private
actors
performing
might
considered
traditional
public
functions
see
jackson
electrical
utility
school
case
held
performance
function
even
state
regulated
state
funded
state
action
unless
function
one
exclusively
prerogative
state
state
provided
significant
encouragement
challenged
action
state
held
responsible
see
jackson
supra
use
peremptory
challenge
private
litigant
meets
neither
criterion
none
news
case
fairly
well
controlled
polk
county
dodson
held
public
defender
employed
state
act
color
state
law
representing
defendant
criminal
trial
circumstance
government
employment
sufficient
create
state
action
important
present
purposes
neither
performance
lawyer
duties
courtroom
lawyer
representing
private
client
time
represent
government
trials
country
adversarial
proceedings
attorneys
private
litigants
act
behalf
government
even
public
whole
attorneys
represent
clients
attorney
job
advanc
undivided
interests
client
essentially
private
function
state
office
authority
needed
footnotes
omitted
performing
adversarial
functions
trial
attorney
private
litigant
acts
independently
government
function
public
defender
enter
guilty
pleas
move
suppress
state
evidence
object
evidence
trial
state
witnesses
make
closing
arguments
behalf
defendants
adversarial
functions
find
peculiarly
difficult
detect
color
state
law
activities
omitted
wishes
limit
scope
dodson
actions
public
defenders
adversarial
relationship
government
ante
minimum
must
concede
dodson
stands
proposition
criminal
defense
attorney
state
actor
using
peremptory
strikes
behalf
client
attorney
representing
private
litigant
civil
suit
government
propositions
true
distinction
case
dodson
turns
state
action
doctrine
head
attorneys
adversarial
relation
state
state
actors
mean
attorneys
relation
state
actors
plainly
wrong
asserts
process
government
private
litigants
work
end
see
ante
civil
trial
attorneys
side
adversarial
relation
ibid
use
peremptory
strikes
direct
opposition
one
another
precisely
contrary
ends
government
work
end
parties
fact
government
neutral
private
litigants
use
peremptory
strikes
point
government
encourage
approve
strikes
direct
used
particular
way
even
used
government
simply
responsible
use
peremptory
strikes
private
litigants
constitutional
liability
attaches
wrongdoers
carry
badge
authority
government
represent
capacity
tarkanian
government
attorney
uses
peremptory
challenge
behalf
client
definition
representing
government
challenge
thereby
becomes
state
action
antithetical
nature
adversarial
process
however
say
private
attorney
acting
behalf
private
client
represents
government
constitutional
purposes
ii
beyond
significant
participation
traditional
function
final
argument
exercise
peremptory
challenge
private
litigant
state
action
takes
place
courtroom
ante
end
left
peremptories
involve
overt
significant
participation
government
constitute
traditional
function
government
also
wrong
ultimate
claim
dodson
stands
anything
actions
lawyer
courtroom
become
government
virtue
location
true
even
actions
based
race
racism
terrible
thing
irrational
destructive
mean
arbitrary
discrimination
based
race
particularly
abhorrent
manifest
courtroom
forum
established
government
resolution
disputes
quiet
rationality
see
ante
every
opprobrious
inequitable
act
constitutional
violation
fifth
amendment
due
process
clause
prohibits
actions
government
held
responsible
government
responsible
everything
occurs
courtroom
government
responsible
peremptory
challenge
private
litigant
respectfully
dissent
dodson
case
brought
rev
stat
statutory
mechanism
many
constitutional
claims
issue
case
therefore
whether
public
defender
acted
color
state
law
lugar
edmondson
oil
held
statutory
requirement
action
color
state
law
identical
state
action
requirement
constitutional
claims
justice
scalia
dissenting
join
justice
dissent
demonstrates
today
opinion
wrong
principle
write
observe
also
unfortunate
consequences
concrete
benefits
newly
discovered
constitutional
rule
problematic
necessarily
net
help
rather
hindrance
minority
litigants
obtaining
racially
diverse
juries
criminal
cases
batson
kentucky
already
prevents
prosecution
using
strikes
effect
today
decision
logically
must
apply
criminal
prosecutions
prevent
defendant
minority
defendant
longer
seek
prevent
jury
seat
many
jurors
race
possible
sure
ordinarily
difficult
prove
strikes
white
jurors
defense
counsel
generally
relied
upon
say
constitution
requires
criminal
cases
today
decision
represents
net
loss
minority
litigant
civil
cases
probably
true
represent
unqualified
gain
either
sides
peremptory
challenges
sometimes
used
assure
rather
prevent
racially
diverse
jury
concrete
costs
today
decision
hand
doubtful
enormous
added
duties
state
federal
trial
courts
obligation
assure
race
included
among
factors
sex
age
religion
political
views
economic
status
used
private
parties
exercising
peremptory
challenges
responsibility
burden
enough
discharged
adversary
process
course
combined
decision
term
powers
ohio
held
party
objecting
allegedly
peremptory
challenge
need
race
challenged
juror
today
decision
means
sides
civil
jury
cases
matter
race
indeed
even
artificial
entities
corporations
may
lodge
objections
objections
considered
denied
appeal
denials
consequence
successful
judgments
overturned
thus
yet
another
complexity
added
increasingly
byzantine
system
justice
devotes
energy
sideshows
less
less
merits
case
judging
number
batson
claims
made
way
even
far
regime
certainty
amount
judges
lawyers
time
devoted
implementing
today
newly
discovered
law
land
enormous
time
diverted
matters
overall
system
justice
certainly
suffer
alternatively
course
congress
may
simply
abolish
peremptory
challenges
cause
justice
suffer
different
fashion
see
holland
illinois
although
today
decision
neither
follows
law
produces
desirable
concrete
results
certainly
great
symbolic
value
overhaul
doctrine
state
action
fashion
magnificent
demonstration
institution
uncompromising
hostility
judgments
even
private
actors
price
demonstration
alas
high
much
paid
minority
litigants
use
courts
dissent