PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE

Foster v. Chatman

Issues

Should the Georgia courts have recognized race discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky, which held that race cannot be used as a basis for striking jurors, where the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike each potential black juror, resulting in an all-white jury in the petitioner’s death penalty case?

 

This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to determine whether the Georgia courts erred in determining that the prosecution’s peremptory challenges were not based on race discrimination. See Brief for Petitioner, Timothy Tyrone Foster at 2–4; Brief for Respondent, Bruce Chatman, Warden, at 1–2. Petitioner Timothy Tyrone Foster contends that he was denied due process and the right to an impartial  jury,  because the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike black jurors on the basis of race. See Brief for Petitioner at 2–3. Foster argues that the prosecution’s jury selection notes demonstrate intent to exclude black jurors from the jury and that the prosecution’s purported reasons for striking the black prospective jurors are insufficient in light of the corresponding notes. See id. at 27–28. Respondent Bruce Chatman counters that the prosecution established sufficient justification for striking each prospective black juror and that the notes were prepared in anticipation of a Batson challenge. See Brief for Respondent at 1–2. The Supreme Court’s  decision in this case  will provide greater clarity as to what constitutes a violation  under  Batson v. Kentucky.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Did the Georgia courts err in failing to recognize race discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case?

In 1986, Timothy Tyrone Foster was arrested for the murder of 79-year-old Queen Madge White in Rome, Georgia. See Foster v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Rivera v. Illinois

Issues

Whether a court's decision in wrongfully denying a peremptory challenge requires an automatic reversal of the related conviction.

 

This case concerns the effect of an erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's peremptory challenge to a prospective juror who was later seated. Defendant Rivera exercised a peremptory challenge to exclude Ms. Gomez, who worked administratively in a hospital known for treating gunshot victims. The trial judge denied the peremptory challenge, claiming a Batson violation. Ms. Gomez was seated on the jury, which then convicted Rivera of first degree murder in a gang related shooting. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the judge committed harmless-error in denying this peremptory challenge. Upon appeal before the Supreme Court, Rivera argues that the erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge necessitates automatic reversal "because it undermines the trial structure for preserving the constitutional right to due process and an impartial jury." The State of Illinois, on the other hand, argues that there has been no constitutional violation, and that state law should determine the effect of an erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge on the verdict.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does the erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's peremptory challenge that resulted in the challenged juror being seated require automatic reversal of a conviction because it undermines the trial structure for preserving the constitutional right to due process and an impartial jury?

In 1998, sixteen-year old Marcus Lee was fatally shot. See Brief for Respondent, Illinois at 1.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE