Twenty-Five Years of Batson: An Introduction to ... - University of Iowa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1416 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 97:1393 important “public purposes” by avoiding “judicial speculation” about the real reasons for peremptory challenges and ensuring, instead, that judges will have the evidence they need “to resolve plausible claims of discrimination.” 198 In sum, the Court’s conclusion that any neutral explanation can rebut an inference of discrimination surely limited Batson’s restrictive impact on peremptory challenges, making it easier for discriminators to conceal their intent and effect their unconstitutional ends. The rejection of the contention that a rebuttal reason must be plausible or persuasive reduced the chances that the objecting party would prevail as a matter of law in step two. In contrast, the conclusion that an objecting party need not prove his case at the initial stage cuts in the other direction, increasing the likelihood that the motives for peremptory challenges will be subjected to constitutional scrutiny. The rejection of the more likely than not standard reduced the chances that a striking party would prevail as a matter of law in step one. Together, these interpretations of Batson’s first two doctrinal steps militate in favor of and promote resolutions of discrimination claims in step three on the basis of a complete record of the evidence bearing on the central issue—the actual intent of the party who struck jurors. 199 C. MONITORING BATSON’S IMPLEMENTATION The opinions discussed in this final subsection have nothing to do with Batson’s scope or the meaning of its three-step doctrinal framework. Instead, the decisions center on the third step of that framework, announcing factspecific rulings that furnish few legal insights. These opinions do illustrate the Court’s willingness to monitor lower court implementation of Batson. The Court has corrected extreme decisions that fail to honor its protective spirit and has reversed appellate rulings that exceed the authority to review trial court resolutions of Batson claims. As a practical matter, the Justices can monitor only a tiny fraction of the Batson objections decided by lower courts. The opinions discussed here seem to send two messages to judges charged with enforcing Batson’s regulatory scheme: (1) when evidence of discrimination is clear, do not hesitate to reject putative justifications and 198. Id. at 172–73. 199. In Thaler v. Haynes, the Court rejected the claim that precedent supported a rule that in step three a trial judge “must reject a demeanor-based explanation for [a] challenge unless the judge personally observed and recalls the aspect of the prospective juror’s demeanor on which the explanation is based.” 130 S. Ct. 1171, 1172 (2010) (per curiam). While the Justices did not state that they would not endorse such a rule, Thaler provides no basis for believing that they would. It seems likely that step three’s objective is to authorize judges to accept or reject explanations for peremptory challenges based on the totality of relevant circumstances. The Justices are unlikely to impose rigid restrictions on the process of divining the actual intent behind the exercise of peremptories.
2012] TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF BATSON 1417 vindicate Batson claims; and (2) when a trial judge’s finding concerning intent is defensible, appellate deference is mandatory. Thomas Miller-El’s Batson claim reached the Supreme Court twice. 200 A prosecutor peremptorily struck ten of eleven black jurors in Miller-El’s capital murder trial. 201 After Texas courts rejected his Batson claim, the defendant filed a federal habeas corpus petition. 202 The district court also rejected his claim, and the Fifth Circuit denied the certificate necessary to appeal that ruling. 203 The sole question before the Supreme Court was whether the court of appeals should hear Miller-El’s case. 204 The governing statute provided that a certificate of appealability should be issued if a habeas petitioner “demonstrate[s] ‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’” 205 This standard is satisfied if reasonable appellate judges “could disagree” with a trial judge’s determination or could find that “the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 206 Eight Justices easily concluded that the court of appeals should have issued a certificate of appealability. 207 They concluded that the court of appeals had applied “too demanding a standard” and, “more fundamental[ly],” had improperly addressed “the substance of an appeal” over which it had no jurisdiction. 208 With only appealability at issue, the question was whether the Batson claim was debatable, not whether it had merit. 209 Because the government conceded that the accused had established a prima facie case and the defendant acknowledged that the state had met the rebuttal requirement with facially valid explanations, the issue was “the persuasiveness” of those explanations. 210 The Court recognized that a trial judge’s determination of intent was a purely factual finding, entitled to “significant deference” on appeal and to even more deference in habeas proceedings. 211 Deference, however, did “not . . . preclude relief.” 212 When 200. See Miller-El v. Dretke (Miller-El II), 545 U.S. 231 (2005); Miller-El v. Cockrell (Miller-El I), 537 U.S. 322 (2003). 201. Miller-El I, 537 U.S. at 326. 202. Id. at 329. The accused had been convicted and sentenced to death. Id. at 328. 203. Id. at 326–27. 204. See id. at 335. 205. Id. at 327 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)). 206. Id.; see also id. at 336 (stating that this “threshold inquiry” is whether the “resolution” of “petitioner’s constitutional claims . . . was debatable amongst jurists of reason”). 207. Id. at 341. 208. Id. at 341–42. 209. Id. at 336, 342. 210. Id. at 338–39. 211. Id. at 339–40. 212. Id. at 340.
Page 1 and 2: Twenty-Five Years of Batson: An Int
Page 3 and 4: 2012] TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF BATSON 1
Page 23: 2012] TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF BATSON 1
Page 31: 2012] TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF BATSON 1

Twenty-Five Years of Batson: An Introduction to ... - University of Iowa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?