In a February 14, 2024 op-ed pub­lished in the Washington Post, the long­time defense lawyer, for­mer direc­tor of the Southern Center for Human Rights, and law pro­fes­sor Stephen Bright high­lights the con­tin­ued ille­gal exclu­sion of Black jurors in vio­la­tion of Batson v. Kennedy (1986). The op-ed titled, ​“Struck from a jury for being Black? It still hap­pens all too often,” uses the case of Georgia death-sen­tenced pris­on­er Warren King, whose peti­tion the U.S. Supreme Court is expect­ed to review on February 23, as the lat­est exam­ple of the per­sis­tent prac­tice. 

​“The right to a fair tri­al before an impar­tial jury of one’s peers is one of the crim­i­nal legal system’s most basic prin­ci­ples. But for many Black peo­ple, the promise is illu­so­ry,” writes Mr. Bright. He explains that Black peo­ple are ​“com­plete­ly or sub­stan­tial­ly under­rep­re­sent­ed on juries, espe­cial­ly in death penal­ty cas­es.” Juries in cap­i­tal cas­es must be death-qual­i­fied, mean­ing that they can be nei­ther cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly opposed nor cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly in favor of the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty. Through this process, which has been crit­i­cized as both prob­lem­at­ic and dis­crim­i­na­to­ry, Black peo­ple opposed to the death penal­ty are dis­missed and pros­e­cu­tors sub­se­quent­ly use their pre­emp­to­ry strikes to dis­miss those who remain. ​“As a result, all-White juries are still com­mon in crim­i­nal tri­als, even in com­mu­ni­ties with sub­stan­tial minor­i­ty pop­u­la­tions,” states Mr. Bright. 

In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court made clear that pros­e­cu­tors are pro­hib­it­ed from exclud­ing jurors based on race and when chal­lenged, must pro­vide race-neu­tral rea­sons for using pre­emp­to­ry strikes on Black peo­ple. ​“And yet pros­e­cu­tors rou­tine­ly get away with strik­ing based on race because courts fail to scru­ti­nize their often-flim­sy excus­es, which include such dubi­ous rea­sons as alleged low intel­li­gence, lack of eye con­tact with pros­e­cu­tor, liv­ing in a high-crime neigh­bor­hood or show­ing bore­dom or inat­ten­tive­ness,” Mr. Bright explains.

Mr. King, an intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled man diag­nosed with schiz­o­phre­nia, filed a peti­tion for cer­tio­rari at the U.S. Supreme Court alleg­ing that the pros­e­cu­tor in his case, John B. Johnson III, inten­tion­al­ly dis­crim­i­nat­ed against Black peo­ple when select­ing jurors at his tri­al. Mr. Johnson, known for a career with ​“per­sis­tent alle­ga­tions of mis­con­duct,” was 10 times more like­ly to strike a Black juror than a white one – 87.5% to 8.8% respec­tive­ly – dur­ing voir dire. Rather than pro­vide race-neu­tral rea­sons for the dis­missal of sev­en Black jurors, Mr. Johnson angri­ly expressed his dis­dain for the deci­sion in Batson. The tri­al judge only found that Mr. Johnson vio­lat­ed Batson in dis­miss­ing one of the sev­en Black jurors. 

“This was egre­gious racial dis­crim­i­na­tion,” states Mr. Bright. ​“Because King did not receive a fair tri­al by an impar­tial jury and now faces the ulti­mate pun­ish­ment, the Supreme Court should take his case and make clear once again that such dis­crim­i­na­tion has no place in the legal system.” 

Tags
Citation Guide
Sources

Stephen Bright, Struck from a jury for being Black? It still hap­pens all too often., Washington Post, February 14, 2024