georgia
mccollum
argued
february
decided
june
respondents
white
charged
assaulting
two
jury
selection
began
trial
judge
denied
prosecution
motion
prohibit
respondents
exercising
peremptory
challenges
racially
discriminatory
manner
georgia
affirmed
distinguishing
edmonson
leesvlle
concrete
held
private
litigant
exercise
peremptory
strikes
racially
discriminatory
manner
ground
involved
civil
litigants
rather
criminal
defendants
held
constitution
prohibits
criminal
defendant
engaging
purposeful
discrimination
ground
race
exercise
peremptory
challenges
pp
exercise
racially
discriminatory
peremptory
challenges
offends
equal
protection
clause
offending
challenges
made
state
batson
kentucky
powers
ohio
civil
cases
made
private
litigants
edmonson
supra
whether
prohibition
extended
discriminatory
challenges
made
criminal
defendant
turns
upon
following
analysis
pp
criminal
defendant
racially
discriminatory
exercise
peremptory
challenges
inflicts
harms
addressed
batson
regardless
whether
state
defense
invokes
discriminatory
challenges
harm
individual
juror
subjecting
open
public
racial
discrimination
harm
community
undermining
public
confidence
country
system
justice
pp
criminal
defendant
exercise
peremptory
challenges
constitutes
state
action
purposes
equal
protection
clause
analytical
framework
summarized
lugar
edmondson
oil
respondents
argument
adversarial
relationship
defendant
prosecution
negates
peremptory
challenge
governmental
character
rejected
unlike
actions
taken
support
defendant
defense
exercise
peremptory
challenge
determines
composition
governmental
body
fact
defendant
exercises
peremptory
challenge
interest
acquittal
conflict
finding
state
action
since
whenever
private
actor
conduct
deemed
fairly
attributable
government
likely
private
motives
animated
actor
decision
pp
state
standing
challenge
defendant
discriminatory
use
peremptory
challenges
since
suffers
concrete
injury
fairness
integrity
judicial
process
undermined
since
representative
citizens
close
relation
potential
jurors
since
barriers
suit
excluded
juror
daunting
see
powers
pp
prohibition
discriminatory
exercise
peremptory
challenges
violate
criminal
defendant
constitutional
rights
affront
justice
argue
right
fair
trial
includes
right
discriminate
group
citizens
based
upon
race
prohibition
violate
sixth
amendment
right
effective
assistance
counsel
since
counsel
normally
explain
reasons
peremptory
challenges
without
revealing
strategy
confidential
communication
since
neither
sixth
amendment
privilege
gives
defendant
right
carry
counsel
unlawful
course
conduct
addition
prohibition
violate
sixth
amendment
right
trial
jury
impartial
respect
parties
removing
juror
defendant
believes
harbors
racial
prejudice
different
exercising
peremptory
challenge
discriminate
invidiously
jurors
account
race
pp
blackmun
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
stevens
kennedy
souter
joined
rehnquist
filed
concurring
opinion
post
thomas
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
post
scalia
post
filed
dissenting
opinions
harrison
kohler
senior
assistant
attorney
general
georgia
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
michael
bowers
attorney
general
charles
richards
senior
assistant
attorney
general
michael
dreeben
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
solicitor
general
starr
assistant
attorney
general
mueller
deputy
solicitor
general
bryson
robert
revell
argued
cause
respondents
brief
jesse
walters
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
criminal
justice
legal
foundation
kent
scheidegger
charles
hobson
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
julius
chambers
charles
stephen
ralston
eric
schnapper
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
national
association
criminal
defense
lawyers
judy
clarke
mario
conte
charles
hynes
pro
se
jay
cohen
matthew
greenberg
victor
barall
carol
teague
schwartzkopf
justice
blackmun
delivered
opinion
century
consistently
repeatedly
reaffirmed
racial
discrimination
state
jury
selection
offends
equal
protection
clause
see
strauder
west
virginia
last
term
held
racial
discrimination
civil
litigant
exercise
peremptory
challenges
also
violates
equal
protection
clause
see
edmonson
leesville
concrete
today
asked
decide
whether
constitution
prohibits
criminal
defendant
engaging
purposeful
racial
discrimination
exercise
peremptory
challenges
august
grand
jury
sitting
dougherty
county
returned
indictment
charging
respondents
aggravated
assault
simple
battery
see
app
indictment
alleged
respondents
beat
assaulted
jerry
myra
collins
respondents
white
alleged
victims
shortly
events
leaflet
widely
distributed
local
community
reporting
assault
urging
community
residents
patronize
respondents
business
jury
selection
began
prosecution
moved
prohibit
respondents
exercising
peremptory
challenges
racially
discriminatory
manner
state
explained
expected
show
victims
race
factor
alleged
assault
according
state
counsel
respondents
indicated
clear
intention
use
peremptory
strikes
racially
discriminatory
manner
arguing
circumstances
case
gave
right
exclude
citizens
participating
jurors
trial
observing
percent
county
population
state
contended
statistically
representative
panel
assembled
jury
selection
potential
jurors
peremptory
challenges
respondents
therefore
able
remove
potential
jurors
relying
batson
kentucky
sixth
amendment
georgia
constitution
state
sought
order
providing
succeeded
making
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
respondents
latter
required
articulate
racially
neutral
explanation
peremptory
challenges
trial
judge
denied
state
motion
holding
either
georgia
federal
law
prohibits
criminal
defendants
exercising
peremptory
strikes
racially
discriminatory
manner
app
issue
certified
immediate
appeal
georgia
vote
affirmed
trial
ruling
acknowledged
edmonson
leesville
concrete
found
exercise
peremptory
challenge
racially
discriminatory
manner
constitute
impermissible
injury
excluded
juror
noted
however
edmonson
involved
private
civil
litigants
criminal
defendants
bearing
mind
long
history
jury
trials
essential
element
protection
human
rights
decline
diminish
free
exercise
peremptory
strikes
criminal
defendant
three
justices
dissented
arguing
edmonson
decisions
establish
racially
based
peremptory
challenges
criminal
defendant
violate
constitution
hunt
benham
fletcher
motion
reconsideration
denied
app
granted
certiorari
resolve
question
left
open
prior
cases
whether
constitution
prohibits
criminal
defendant
engaging
purposeful
racial
discrimination
exercise
peremptory
challenges
ii
last
century
almost
unbroken
chain
decisions
gradually
abolished
race
consideration
jury
service
strauder
west
virginia
invalidated
state
statute
providing
white
men
serve
jurors
stating
defendant
right
petit
jury
composed
whole
part
persons
race
held
defendant
right
tried
jury
whose
members
selected
nondiscriminatory
criteria
see
also
neal
delaware
norris
alabama
state
exclude
jury
venire
false
assumption
group
qualified
serve
jurors
swain
alabama
confronted
question
whether
defendant
denied
equal
protection
state
exercise
peremptory
challenges
exclude
members
race
petit
jury
although
rejected
defendant
attempt
establish
equal
protection
claim
premised
solely
pattern
jury
strikes
case
acknowledged
proof
systematic
exclusion
use
peremptories
period
time
might
establish
violation
batson
kentucky
discarded
swain
evidentiary
formulation
batson
held
defendant
may
establish
prima
facie
case
purposeful
discrimination
selection
petit
jury
based
solely
prosecutor
exercise
peremptory
challenges
defendant
trial
defendant
makes
prima
facie
showing
burden
shifts
state
come
forward
neutral
explanation
challenging
black
jurors
last
term
applied
batson
framework
two
contexts
powers
ohio
held
trial
white
criminal
defendant
prosecutor
prohibited
excluding
jurors
basis
race
edmonson
leesville
concrete
decided
civil
case
private
litigants
exercise
peremptory
strikes
racially
discriminatory
manner
deciding
whether
constitution
prohibits
criminal
defendants
exercising
racially
discriminatory
peremptory
challenges
must
answer
four
questions
first
whether
criminal
defendant
exercise
peremptory
challenges
racially
discriminatory
manner
inflicts
harms
addressed
batson
second
whether
exercise
peremptory
challenges
criminal
defendant
constitutes
state
action
third
whether
prosecutors
standing
raise
constitutional
challenge
fourth
whether
constitutional
rights
criminal
defendant
nonetheless
preclude
extension
precedents
case
iii
majority
powers
recognized
batson
designed
serve
multiple
ends
one
protect
individual
defendants
discrimination
selection
jurors
powers
edmonson
extension
batson
context
designed
remedy
harm
done
dignity
persons
integrity
courts
powers
long
ago
strauder
recognized
denying
person
participation
jury
service
account
race
unconstitutionally
discriminates
excluded
juror
see
also
batson
individual
juror
right
sit
particular
petit
jury
possess
right
excluded
one
account
race
powers
regardless
invokes
discriminatory
challenge
doubt
harm
cases
juror
subjected
open
public
racial
discrimination
harm
discriminatory
jury
selection
extends
beyond
inflicted
defendant
excluded
juror
touch
entire
community
batson
one
goals
jury
system
impress
upon
criminal
defendant
community
whole
verdict
conviction
acquittal
given
accordance
law
persons
fair
powers
selection
procedures
purposefully
exclude
juries
undermine
public
confidence
well
overt
wrong
often
apparent
entire
jury
panel
casts
doubt
obligation
parties
jury
indeed
adhere
law
throughout
trial
cause
see
generally
underwood
ending
race
discrimination
jury
selection
whose
right
anyway
need
public
confidence
especially
high
cases
involving
crimes
cases
emotions
affected
community
inevitably
heated
volatile
public
confidence
integrity
criminal
justice
system
essential
preserving
community
peace
trials
involving
crimes
see
alschuler
jury
voir
dire
peremptory
challenges
review
jury
verdicts
chi
describing
two
trials
miami
jurors
peremptorily
struck
white
defendants
accused
racial
beating
public
outrage
riots
followed
defendants
acquittal
hands
state
defense
allows
jurors
excluded
group
bias
willing
participant
scheme
undermine
foundation
system
justice
citizens
confidence
state
alvarado
super
public
confidence
criminal
justice
undermined
conviction
trial
racial
discrimination
occurred
jury
selection
public
confidence
undermined
defendant
assisted
racially
discriminatory
peremptory
strikes
obtains
acquittal
fact
defendant
use
discriminatory
peremptory
challenges
harms
jurors
community
end
equal
protection
inquiry
racial
discrimination
although
repugnant
contexts
violates
constitution
attributable
state
action
see
moose
lodge
irvis
thus
second
question
must
answered
whether
criminal
defendant
exercise
peremptory
challenge
constitutes
state
action
purposes
equal
protection
clause
edmonson
cases
decided
presented
problem
racially
discriminatory
peremptory
challenges
involved
assertions
discrimination
prosecutor
quintessential
state
actor
edmonson
contrast
contested
peremptory
challenges
exercised
private
defendant
civil
action
order
determine
whether
state
action
present
setting
edmonson
used
analytical
framework
summarized
lugar
edmondson
oil
first
inquiry
whether
claimed
constitutional
deprivation
resulted
exercise
right
privilege
source
state
authority
question
peremptory
challenges
satisfy
first
requirement
permitted
government
statute
decisional
law
deems
appropriate
allow
parties
exclude
given
number
persons
otherwise
satisfy
requirements
service
petit
jury
edmonson
edmonson
georgia
defendant
right
exercise
peremptory
challenges
scope
right
established
provision
state
law
ann
second
inquiry
whether
private
party
charged
deprivation
described
state
actor
see
lugar
resolving
issue
edmonson
found
useful
apply
three
principles
extent
actor
relies
governmental
assistance
benefits
whether
actor
performing
traditional
governmental
function
whether
injury
caused
aggravated
unique
way
incidents
governmental
authority
first
principle
edmonson
found
peremptory
challenge
system
well
jury
system
whole
simply
exist
without
overt
significant
participation
government
georgia
provides
compilation
jury
lists
board
jury
commissioners
county
establishes
general
criteria
service
sources
creating
pool
qualified
jurors
representing
fair
community
ann
state
law
provides
jurors
selected
specified
process
summoned
authority
state
paid
expense
allowance
state
whether
serve
jury
potential
jurors
placed
panels
order
facilitate
examination
counsel
administered
oath
questioned
voir
dire
determine
whether
impartial
subject
challenge
cause
light
procedures
defendant
georgia
criminal
case
relies
governmental
assistance
benefits
equivalent
found
civil
context
edmonson
enforcing
discriminatory
peremptory
challenge
elected
place
power
property
prestige
behind
alleged
discrimination
edmonson
citation
omitted
regard
second
principle
edmonson
found
peremptory
challenges
perform
traditional
function
government
sole
purpose
permit
litigants
assist
government
selection
impartial
trier
fact
edmonson
recognized
jury
system
turn
performs
critical
governmental
functions
guarding
rights
litigants
ensur
ing
continued
acceptance
laws
people
citation
omitted
conclusions
apply
even
greater
force
criminal
context
selection
jury
criminal
case
fulfills
unique
constitutionally
compelled
governmental
function
compare
duncan
louisiana
making
sixth
amendment
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
minneapolis
louis
bombolis
constitutional
obligation
provide
jury
trial
civil
cases
cf
west
atkins
private
physician
hired
state
provide
medical
care
prisoners
state
actor
doctor
hired
fulfill
state
constitutional
obligation
attend
necessary
medical
care
prison
inmates
state
avoid
constitutional
responsibilities
delegating
public
function
private
parties
cf
terry
adams
private
political
party
determination
qualifications
primary
voters
held
constitute
state
action
finally
edmonson
indicated
courtroom
setting
peremptory
challenge
exercised
intensifies
harmful
effects
private
litigant
discriminatory
act
contributes
characterization
state
action
concerns
equally
present
context
criminal
trial
regardless
precipitated
jurors
removal
perception
reality
criminal
trial
excused
juror
based
race
outcome
attributed
state
respondents
nonetheless
contend
adversarial
relationship
defendant
prosecution
negates
governmental
character
peremptory
challenge
respondents
rely
polk
county
dodson
defendant
sued
public
defender
represented
defendant
claimed
public
defender
violated
constitutional
rights
failing
provide
adequate
representation
determined
public
defender
qualify
state
actor
engaged
general
representation
criminal
defendant
polk
county
hold
adversarial
relationship
public
defender
state
precludes
finding
state
action
held
adversarial
relationship
prevented
attorney
public
employment
alone
sufficient
support
finding
state
action
instead
determination
whether
public
defender
state
actor
particular
purpose
depends
nature
context
function
performing
example
branti
finkel
held
public
defender
making
personnel
decisions
behalf
state
state
actor
must
comply
constitutional
requirements
polk
county
noted
without
deciding
public
defender
may
act
color
state
law
performing
certain
administrative
possibly
investigative
functions
see
exercise
peremptory
challenge
differs
significantly
actions
taken
support
defendant
defense
exercising
peremptory
challenge
criminal
defendant
wielding
power
choose
quintessential
governmental
body
indeed
institution
government
judicial
system
depends
thus
held
edmonson
government
confers
private
body
power
choose
government
employees
officials
private
body
bound
constitutional
mandate
lastly
fact
defendant
exercises
peremptory
challenge
interest
acquittal
conflict
finding
state
action
whenever
private
actor
conduct
deemed
fairly
attributable
government
likely
private
motives
animated
actor
decision
indeed
edmonson
recognized
private
party
exercise
peremptory
challenges
constituted
state
action
even
though
motive
underlying
exercise
peremptory
challenge
may
protect
private
interest
see
held
defendant
discriminatory
exercise
peremptory
challenge
violation
equal
protection
move
question
whether
state
standing
challenge
defendant
discriminatory
use
peremptory
challenges
powers
held
white
criminal
defendant
standing
raise
equal
protection
rights
black
jurors
wrongfully
excluded
jury
service
standing
limited
exception
powers
recognized
litigant
may
raise
claim
behalf
third
party
litigant
demonstrate
suffered
concrete
injury
close
relation
third
party
exists
hindrance
third
party
ability
protect
interests
edmonson
applied
analysis
deciding
civil
litigants
standing
raise
equal
protection
rights
jurors
excluded
basis
race
applying
first
prong
standing
analysis
powers
found
criminal
defendant
suffered
cognizable
injury
racial
discrimination
selection
jurors
casts
doubt
integrity
judicial
process
places
fairness
criminal
proceeding
doubt
citation
omitted
edmonson
found
harms
limited
criminal
sphere
surely
state
suffers
similar
injury
fairness
integrity
judicial
process
undermined
applying
second
prong
standing
analysis
powers
held
voir
dire
permits
defendant
establish
relation
bond
trust
jurors
relation
continues
throughout
entire
trial
exclusion
juror
basis
race
severs
relation
invidious
way
edmonson
state
relation
potential
jurors
case
closer
relationships
approved
powers
edmonson
representative
citizens
state
logical
proper
party
assert
invasion
constitutional
rights
excluded
jurors
criminal
trial
indeed
fourteenth
amendment
forbids
state
denying
persons
within
jurisdiction
equal
protection
laws
applying
final
prong
standing
analysis
powers
recognized
although
individuals
excluded
jury
service
basis
race
right
bring
suit
behalf
barriers
suit
excluded
juror
daunting
see
also
edmonson
barriers
less
formidable
context
see
note
discrimination
defense
peremptory
challenges
batson
kentucky
underwood
summarizing
barriers
suit
excluded
juror
accordingly
hold
state
standing
assert
excluded
jurors
rights
final
question
whether
interests
served
batson
must
give
way
rights
criminal
defendant
preliminary
matter
important
recall
peremptory
challenges
constitutionally
protected
fundamental
rights
rather
one
means
constitutional
end
impartial
jury
fair
trial
repeatedly
stated
right
peremptory
challenge
may
withheld
altogether
without
impairing
constitutional
guarantee
impartial
jury
fair
trial
see
frazier
wood
stilson
see
also
swain
yet
swain
reviewed
old
credentials
peremptory
challenge
noted
long
widely
held
belief
peremptory
challenge
necessary
part
trial
jury
see
likewise
recognized
role
litigants
determining
jury
composition
provides
one
reason
wide
acceptance
jury
system
verdicts
edmonson
believe
decision
undermine
contribution
peremptory
challenge
administration
justice
nonetheless
race
stereotypes
price
acceptance
jury
panel
fair
reaffirm
today
price
high
meet
standard
constitution
defense
counsel
limited
legitimate
lawful
conduct
nix
whiteside
defense
counsel
render
ineffective
assistance
informs
client
disclose
client
perjury
move
withdraw
representation
affront
justice
argue
fair
trial
includes
right
discriminate
group
citizens
based
upon
race
prohibition
exercise
discriminatory
peremptory
challenges
violate
defendant
sixth
amendment
right
effective
assistance
counsel
counsel
ordinarily
explain
reasons
peremptory
challenges
without
revealing
anything
trial
strategy
confidential
client
communications
rare
case
explanation
challenge
entail
confidential
communications
reveal
trial
strategy
camera
discussion
arranged
see
zolin
cf
batson
expressing
confidence
trial
judges
develop
procedures
implement
holding
event
neither
sixth
amendment
right
privilege
gives
criminal
defendant
right
carry
counsel
unlawful
course
conduct
see
nix
zolin
see
swift
defendants
racism
peremptory
challenge
colum
hum
rights
rev
lastly
prohibition
discriminatory
exercise
peremptory
challenges
violate
defendant
sixth
amendment
right
trial
impartial
jury
goal
sixth
amendment
jury
impartiality
respect
contestants
holland
illinois
see
also
hayes
missouri
recognize
course
defendant
right
impartial
jury
view
without
racial
animus
long
distorted
system
criminal
justice
accordingly
held
mechanism
removing
venire
defendant
specific
reason
believe
incapable
confronting
suppressing
racism
see
ham
south
carolina
plurality
opinion
white
cf
morgan
illinois
exclusion
juror
capital
trial
permissible
upon
showing
juror
incapable
considering
sentences
death
distinction
exercising
peremptory
challenge
discriminate
invidiously
jurors
account
race
exercising
peremptory
challenge
remove
individual
juror
harbors
racial
prejudice
firmly
rejected
view
assumptions
partiality
based
race
provide
legitimate
basis
disqualifying
person
impartial
juror
stated
last
term
powers
may
accept
defense
racial
discrimination
stereotype
law
condemns
heterogeneous
society
policy
well
constitutional
considerations
militate
divisive
assumption
per
se
rule
justice
law
may
turn
upon
pigmentation
skin
accident
birth
choice
religion
ristaino
ross
therefore
reaffirm
today
exercise
peremptory
challenge
must
based
either
race
juror
racial
stereotypes
held
party
iv
hold
constitution
prohibits
criminal
defendant
engaging
purposeful
discrimination
ground
race
exercise
peremptory
challenges
accordingly
state
demonstrates
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
defendants
defendants
must
articulate
racially
neutral
explanation
peremptory
challenges
judgment
georgia
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
defendant
indicted
offense
carrying
penalty
four
years
georgia
law
provides
may
peremptorily
challenge
jurors
impaneled
try
ninth
circuit
recently
prohibited
criminal
defendants
exercising
peremptory
challenges
basis
gender
de
cross
en
banc
although
panel
decision
vacated
granting
rehearing
en
banc
fifth
circuit
panel
held
criminal
defendants
may
exercise
peremptory
strikes
racially
discriminatory
manner
see
greer
rehearing
granted
batson
majority
specifically
reserved
issue
us
today
two
batson
dissenters
however
argued
clear
inescapable
import
batson
similarly
limit
defendants
justice
marshall
agreed
stating
ur
criminal
justice
system
requires
freedom
bias
accused
also
prejudice
prosecution
state
scales
evenly
held
hayes
missouri
concurring
opinion
dissent
edmonson
justice
scalia
stated
effect
decision
logically
must
apply
defendants
criminal
prosecutions
experience
many
state
jurisdictions
led
recognition
peremptory
challenge
regardless
exercises
harms
challenged
juror
entire
community
acting
pursuant
state
constitutions
state
courts
ruled
criminal
defendants
greater
license
violate
equal
protection
rights
prospective
jurors
prosecutors
see
state
levinson
haw
people
kern
app
div
aff
state
alvarado
super
state
neil
commonwealth
soares
mass
cert
denied
people
wheeler
lugar
held
private
litigant
appropriately
characterized
state
actor
jointly
participates
state
officials
securing
seizure
property
private
party
claims
rights
indeed
common
practice
reveal
identity
challenging
party
jurors
potential
jurors
thus
enhancing
perception
rejected
see
underwood
ending
race
discrimination
jury
selection
whose
right
anyway
although
polk
county
determined
whether
public
defender
actions
color
state
law
opposed
whether
constituted
state
action
subsequently
held
two
inquiries
see
kohn
specifically
extended
polk
county
reasoning
state
action
cases
see
blum
yaretsky
numerous
commentators
similarly
concluded
defendant
exercise
peremptory
challenges
constitutes
state
action
see
generally
alschuler
jury
voir
dire
peremptory
challenges
review
jury
verdicts
chi
rev
note
state
action
peremptory
challenge
evolution
treatment
implications
georgia
mccollum
notre
dame
note
discrimination
defense
peremptory
challenges
batson
kentucky
comment
prosecutor
right
object
defendant
abuse
peremptory
challenges
tanford
racism
adversary
system
defendant
use
peremptory
challenges
underwood
chief
justice
rehnquist
concurring
dissent
edmonson
leesville
concrete
continue
believe
case
wrongly
decided
long
remains
law
believe
controls
disposition
case
issue
state
action
fourteenth
amendment
therefore
join
opinion
justice
thomas
concurring
judgment
matter
first
impression
think
shared
view
dissenting
opinions
criminal
defendant
use
peremptory
strikes
violate
fourteenth
amendment
involve
state
action
yet
agree
chief
justice
decision
last
term
edmonson
leesville
concrete
governs
case
requires
opposite
conclusion
respondents
question
edmonson
believe
must
accept
consequences
therefore
concur
judgment
reversing
georgia
write
separately
express
general
dissatisfaction
continuing
attempts
use
constitution
regulate
peremptory
challenges
see
batson
kentucky
powers
ohio
edmonson
supra
view
restricting
criminal
defendant
use
challenges
case
takes
us
reasoning
result
strauder
west
virginia
doubt
departure
produce
favorable
consequences
contrary
certain
black
criminal
defendants
rue
day
ventured
road
inexorably
lead
elimination
peremptory
strikes
strauder
notes
invalidated
state
law
prohibited
blacks
serving
juries
course
decision
observed
racial
composition
jury
may
affect
outcome
criminal
case
explained
well
known
prejudices
often
exist
particular
classes
community
sway
judgment
jurors
therefore
operate
cases
deny
persons
classes
full
enjoyment
protection
others
enjoy
thus
recognized
century
ago
precise
point
justice
makes
today
simply
stated
securing
representation
defendant
race
jury
may
help
overcome
racial
bias
provide
defendant
better
chance
fair
trial
post
think
basic
premise
strauder
become
obsolete
public
general
continues
believe
makeup
juries
matter
certain
instances
consider
example
press
reports
criminal
trials
major
newspapers
regularly
note
number
whites
blacks
sit
juries
important
cases
editors
readers
apparently
recognize
conscious
unconscious
prejudice
persists
society
may
influence
juries
common
experience
common
sense
confirm
understanding
batson
however
began
depart
strauder
holding
without
actual
showing
suppositions
possibility
jurors
may
harbor
prejudice
legitimacy
said
particular
prosecutor
justify
peremptory
strikes
stating
merely
challenged
jurors
defendant
race
assumption
intuitive
judgment
partial
defendant
shared
race
noted
however
decision
strauder
rested
precisely
assumption
intuition
reasonably
surmised
without
direct
evidence
particular
case
juries
might
judge
black
defendants
unfairly
departure
strauder
two
negative
consequences
first
produces
serious
misordering
priorities
strauder
put
rights
defendants
foremost
today
decision
protecting
jurors
leaves
defendants
less
means
protecting
unless
jurors
actually
admit
prejudice
voir
dire
defendants
generally
must
allow
sit
run
risk
racial
animus
affect
verdict
cf
evid
generally
excluding
juror
testimony
trial
impeach
verdict
effect
exalted
right
citizens
sit
juries
rights
criminal
defendant
even
though
defendant
jurors
faces
imprisonment
even
death
minimum
think
inversion
priorities
give
us
pause
second
departure
strauder
taken
us
slope
inquiry
clear
stopping
point
today
decide
white
defendants
may
strike
black
veniremen
basis
race
eventually
decide
whether
black
defendants
may
strike
white
veniremen
see
state
carr
next
come
question
whether
defendants
may
exercise
peremptories
basis
sex
see
de
gross
consequences
defendants
decision
future
cases
remain
seen
whatever
benefits
perceived
criminal
defendant
members
class
jury
see
strauder
evaporated
computer
search
instance
reveals
phrase
jury
appeared
times
past
five
years
new
york
times
chicago
tribune
los
angeles
times
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
submitted
brief
arguing
sincerity
whether
white
defendants
use
peremptory
challenges
purge
minority
jurors
presents
quite
different
issues
whether
minority
defendant
strike
majority
group
jurors
brief
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
amicus
curiae
although
suppose
issue
technically
remains
open
difficult
see
result
different
defendants
black
justice
dissenting
reaches
remarkable
conclusion
criminal
defendants
prosecuted
state
act
behalf
adversary
exercise
peremptory
challenges
jury
selection
purports
merely
follow
precedents
cases
compel
perverse
result
contrary
decisions
specifically
establish
criminal
defendants
lawyers
government
actors
perform
traditional
trial
functions
well
properly
settled
constitution
equal
protection
guarantee
forbids
prosecutors
exercising
peremptory
challenges
racially
discriminatory
fashion
see
batson
kentucky
powers
ohio
constitution
however
affords
similar
protection
private
action
embedded
fourteenth
amendment
jurisprudence
dichotomy
state
action
subject
scrutiny
amendmen
private
conduct
amendment
affords
shield
matter
unfair
conduct
may
national
collegiate
athletic
assn
tarkanian
omitted
distinction
appears
face
fourteenth
amendment
provides
state
shall
deny
person
within
jurisdiction
equal
protection
laws
amdt
emphasis
added
critical
straightforward
question
case
presents
whether
criminal
defendants
lawyers
exercising
peremptory
challenges
part
defense
state
actors
lugar
edmondson
oil
developed
approach
identifying
state
action
cases
first
ask
whether
claimed
deprivation
resulted
exercise
right
privilege
source
state
authority
next
decide
whether
particular
facts
issue
parties
allegedly
caused
deprivation
federal
right
appropriately
fairness
characterized
state
actors
ibid
edmonson
leesville
concrete
determination
case
peremptory
challenge
creation
state
authority
ante
breaks
new
ground
see
edmonson
supra
disposing
threshold
matter
leaves
task
showing
criminal
defendants
exercise
peremptories
deemed
governmental
actors
cases
require
neglects
realistic
appraisal
relationship
defendants
government
brought
trial
discussed
relationship
polk
county
dodson
held
public
defender
act
color
state
law
purposes
performing
lawyer
traditional
functions
counsel
defendant
criminal
proceeding
began
analysis
explaining
public
defender
obligations
toward
client
different
obligations
defense
attorney
obligations
preclude
attributing
acts
defense
lawyers
state
duties
defense
lawyer
personal
counselor
advocate
often
said
lawyers
officers
courts
appeals
agreed
lawyer
representing
client
virtue
officer
state
actor
ibid
went
stress
inconsistency
adversarial
system
justice
theories
make
defense
lawyers
state
actors
system
said
defense
lawyer
characteristically
opposes
designated
representatives
state
ibid
adversarial
posture
rests
assumption
defense
lawyer
best
serves
public
acting
behalf
state
concert
rather
advancing
undivided
interests
client
quoting
ferri
ackerman
moreover
pointed
independence
defense
attorneys
state
control
constitutional
dimension
gideon
wainwright
established
right
state
criminal
defendants
guiding
hand
counsel
every
step
proceedings
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
implicit
right
assumption
counsel
free
state
control
fair
trial
unless
accused
receives
services
effective
independent
advocate
ibid
thus
defense
freedom
state
authority
empirically
true
constitutionally
mandated
attribute
adversarial
system
deems
color
state
law
requirement
satisfied
dodson
identical
fourteenth
amendment
state
action
requirement
see
lugar
supra
holding
dodson
simply
squared
today
decision
particular
dodson
explained
away
case
concerned
exclusively
employment
status
public
defenders
see
ante
dodson
reasoned
public
defenders
performing
traditional
defense
functions
state
actors
occupy
position
defense
attorneys
relevant
respects
reasoning
followed
heels
critical
determination
defending
accused
essentially
private
function
state
action
refusal
acknowledge
dodson
initial
holding
entire
opinion
turned
make
holding
go
away
also
seeks
evade
dodson
logic
spinning
theory
defendants
lawyers
transmogrify
government
adversaries
state
actors
exercise
peremptory
challenge
change
back
perform
defense
functions
see
ante
dodson
however
established
even
though
public
defenders
might
act
color
state
law
carrying
administrative
investigative
functions
outside
courtroom
vested
state
authority
performing
lawyer
traditional
functions
counsel
defendant
criminal
proceeding
since
making
peremptory
challenges
plainly
qualifies
traditional
function
criminal
defense
lawyers
see
swain
alabama
lewis
dodson
forecloses
functional
analysis
even
aside
prior
rejection
functional
theory
fails
state
normally
held
responsible
private
decision
exercised
coercive
power
provided
significant
encouragement
choice
must
law
deemed
state
blum
yaretsky
thus
private
party
exercise
choice
allowed
state
law
amount
state
action
purposes
fourteenth
amendment
long
initiative
comes
private
party
state
jackson
metropolitan
edison
see
flagg
brooks
state
responsible
decision
permits
compel
government
way
influences
defense
decision
use
peremptory
challenge
strike
particular
juror
adversarial
system
criminal
justice
traditions
peremptory
challenge
vest
decision
strike
juror
entirely
accused
defendant
may
chooses
peremptorily
challenge
dislike
without
showing
cause
may
exercise
right
without
reason
reason
arbitrarily
capriciously
pointer
quoting
coke
institutes
ed
essential
nature
peremptory
challenge
one
exercised
without
reason
stated
without
inquiry
without
subject
control
swain
supra
see
dodson
supra
lewis
supra
certainly
edmonson
leesville
concrete
render
dodson
realistic
approach
state
action
inquiry
dead
letters
edmonson
distinguished
dodson
saying
ordinary
context
civil
litigation
government
party
adversarial
relation
exist
government
private
litigant
jury
selection
process
government
private
litigants
work
end
edmonson
nonpartisan
administrative
interests
state
partisan
interests
private
litigants
may
odds
civil
jury
selection
said
partisan
interests
state
defendant
jury
selection
criminal
trial
private
civil
litigant
opposes
private
counterpart
criminal
defendant
design
adversarial
relationship
government
simply
put
defendant
seeks
strike
jurors
predisposed
convict
state
seeks
strike
jurors
predisposed
acquit
edmonson
clearly
recognized
point
limited
statement
adversarial
relation
exist
government
private
litigant
ordinary
context
civil
litigation
government
party
ibid
emphasis
added
arrest
trial
possible
sentencing
punishment
antagonistic
relationship
government
accused
clear
see
rather
squarely
facing
fact
edmonson
rests
finding
governmental
action
points
defendants
exercise
peremptory
challenges
courtroom
judges
alter
composition
jury
response
defendants
choices
found
approach
wanting
context
civil
controversies
private
litigants
reasons
need
repeated
see
dissenting
even
thought
edmonson
correctly
decided
accept
today
simplistic
extension
dodson
makes
clear
unique
relationship
criminal
defendants
state
precludes
attributing
defendants
actions
state
whatever
case
civil
trials
otherwise
underlying
question
whether
accused
described
fairness
state
actor
dodson
accords
state
action
jurisprudence
common
sense
honor
ii
really
seems
bother
prospect
leaving
criminal
defendants
attorneys
free
make
racially
motivated
peremptory
challenges
undermine
ideal
nondiscriminatory
jury
selection
espoused
batson
concept
government
alone
must
honor
constitutional
dictates
however
fundamental
tenet
legal
order
obstacle
circumvented
particularly
context
criminal
trials
held
prosecution
uniquely
high
standards
conduct
see
brady
maryland
disclosure
evidence
favorable
accused
berger
prosecutor
representative
ordinary
party
controversy
sovereignty
whose
interest
criminal
prosecution
shall
win
case
justice
shall
done
considered
purely
pragmatic
terms
moreover
holding
may
fail
advance
nondiscriminatory
criminal
justice
clear
conscious
unconscious
racism
affect
way
white
jurors
perceive
minority
defendants
facts
presented
trials
perhaps
determining
verdict
guilt
innocence
see
developments
law
race
criminal
process
colbert
challenging
challenge
thirteenth
amendment
prohibition
racial
use
peremptory
challenges
cornell
using
peremptory
challenges
secure
minority
representation
jury
may
help
overcome
racial
bias
substantial
reason
believe
distorting
influence
race
minimized
racially
mixed
jury
see
developments
law
supra
amicus
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
explained
case
ability
use
peremptory
challenges
exclude
majority
race
jurors
may
crucial
empaneling
fair
jury
many
cases
african
american
minority
defendant
may
faced
jury
array
racial
group
underrepresented
degree
sufficiently
permit
challenge
fourteenth
amendment
possible
chance
defendant
may
minority
jurors
jury
actually
tries
uses
peremptories
strike
members
majority
race
brief
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
amicus
curiae
omitted
constitution
give
federal
judges
reach
wipe
marks
racism
every
courtroom
land
frustrating
sure
limitations
necessary
intended
consequence
fourteenth
amendment
state
action
requirement
accept
conclusion
government
responsible
decisions
criminal
defendants
make
fighting
state
prosecution
respectfully
dissent
justice
scalia
dissenting
agree
judgment
follows
logically
edmonson
leesville
concrete
reasons
given
edmonson
dissents
however
think
case
wrongly
decided
barely
year
later
witness
reduction
terminally
absurd
criminal
defendant
process
defending
state
held
acting
behalf
state
justice
demonstrates
sheer
inanity
proposition
case
mere
statement
suffice
contrived
nature
justifications
see
need
add
discussion
differ
views
consider
edmonson
distinguishable
ie
principle
except
principle
bad
decision
followed
logically
illogical
conclusion
today
decision
gives
lie
belief
activist
evolutionary
constitutional
jurisprudence
always
evolves
direction
greater
individual
rights
interest
promoting
supposedly
greater
good
race
relations
society
whole
make
mistake
underlies
use
constitution
destroy
right
criminal
defendants
exercise
peremptory
challenges
wish
secure
jury
consider
fair
dissent