Powers v. Ohio

Last updated

Powers v. Ohio
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 9, 1990
Decided April 1, 1991
Full case namePowers v. Ohio
Docket no. 89-5011
Citations499 U.S. 400 ( more )
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter
DissentScalia, joined by Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. XIV

Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that re-examined the Batson Challenge. [1] Established by Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Batson Challenge [2] prohibits jury selectors from using peremptory challenges on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and sex. Powers expanded the jurisdictions of this principle, allowing all parties within a case, defendants especially, to question preemptory challenges during a jury selection, regardless of race. [3] This holding was protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [4]

Contents

Background

Larry Joe Powers, a white defendant, was prosecuted on two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder in Franklin County, Ohio. [5] Under the Sixth Amendment, Powers requested a jury trial to help prove him innocent; however, during the jury selection process, seven Black venirepersons were cut out from the final jury selection. Powers objected and requested an explanation as to why these venirepersons were excluded. The Court dismissed his objection, and in the trial Powers was found guilty of all charges. The court sentenced him to 53 years in prison. [6]

Following his conviction, Powers went to the Ohio Court of Appeals under the belief that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were infringed upon. According to Powers, he was not given a fair, impartial jury because of racially justified preemptory challenges. This move was ultimately another infringement upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [7]

Powers argued his status as a white man was irrelevant to case at hand. He explained that he had the right to question "the prosecution's discriminatory use of peremptories." [8] The Court of Appeals approved his appeal, but the Ohio Supreme Court denied his case. Powers, distraught, took it to the Supreme Court instead, where they agreed to review it.

As Powers's case was reviewed, the Supreme Court dealt with Holland v. Illinois. [9] This case found that the Sixth Amendment did not prevent jury selectors from excluding potential jurors on the basis of race. With this new conclusion, Powers had to restructure his case around the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [7]

Decision

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, leading majority opinion for Powers v. Ohio. Anthony Kennedy official SCOTUS portrait.jpg
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, leading majority opinion for Powers v. Ohio.

The Court came to multiple conclusions with this case. For starters, it did establish, once again, that racial bias and discrimination in juries and jury selection processes were unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the following statement in regards to this: "Invoking the Equal Protection Clause and federal statutory law, and relying upon well-established principles of standing, we [the Supreme Court of the United States] hold that a criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusions of jurors effected through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded jurors share the same race." [1] Additionally, the Supreme Court concluded that "discriminatory use of peremptories harms the excluded jurors by depriving them of a significant opportunity to participate in civil life." [1]

As the justices came to this conclusion, they drew heavily from Swain v. Alabama , where the court concluded: "[the] state's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause." [10] Ultimately, the state has a right to practice peremptory challenges in the jury selection process; however, this right is only protected "as long as that reason is related to the outcome" (United States v. Robinson). Powers v. Ohio helped reaffirm this.

The case also addressed a provision Batson v. Kentucky failed to. In Batson v. Kentucky, Batson, the black defendant of the case, called out racially-based discrimination in the courtroom. [5] The court agreed with him, and concluded that racially motivated peremptory challenges were unconstitutional; however, the Batson court argued that: "a criminal defendant may object to race-based... peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and excluded juror share the same race." [11] The Powers decision re-examined this provision and established that defendants have the right to call out and question racial discrimination in the courtroom regardless of a difference in race. In other words, a white defendant could question the exclusion of a black juror and vice versa as it was a defendant's right to question the integrity of their impartial trial without race standing in the way of that.

In the final decision, the Court ruled in favor of Powers's question in a 7–2 decision; but, it did not overrule Powers's personal case. [6] The Court's majority opinion explained, "if for any reason the State is unable to reconvict Powers for the double murder at issue here, later victims may pay the price for our extravagance...crime would go unpunished and criminals go free." While racial discrimination was unconstitutional, it did not take away from Power's crimes. [10] Thus Powers v. Ohio re-examined the Batson Challenge and expanded its jurisdictions, but it did not directly address or overturn Powers's status as guilty.

Later developments

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, important voice in the dissent of the case. Along with Marshall, Stevens, Blackmun, White, and O'Connor, Rehnquist was part of the Court that decided Batson v. Kentucky. William Rehnquist.jpg
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, important voice in the dissent of the case. Along with Marshall, Stevens, Blackmun, White, and O'Connor, Rehnquist was part of the Court that decided Batson v. Kentucky .

Powers v. Ohio was an important case that helped continue to remove discrimination within the courtroom. However, it is important to note that it did not entirely dismantle discrimination in jury selection. Questions about the constitutionality of defendant peremptory challenges were never brought into the picture. [6] Future court cases, like Singleton v. Wulff, would address these issues.

Related Research Articles

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States about racial discrimination and United States constitutional criminal procedure. Strauder was the first instance where the Supreme Court reversed a state court decision denying a defendant's motion to remove his criminal trial to federal court pursuant to Section 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

In American and Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied. A peremptory challenge can be a major part of voir dire. A peremptory challenge also allows attorneys to veto a potential juror on a "hunch".

Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, summonses are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom.

Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case that clarified the constitutional limitations on the use by prosecutors of peremptory challenges and of the Texas procedure termed the "jury shuffle."

Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965), was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the legality of a struck jury.

Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (1967), found in favor of the petitioner (Whitus), who had been convicted for murder, and as such reversed their convictions. This was due to the Georgia jury selection policies, in which it was alleged racial discrimination had occurred.

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), a criminal case. The Court applied the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as determined in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), in finding that such race-based challenges violated the Constitution.

Racial discrimination in jury selection is specifically prohibited by law in many jurisdictions throughout the world. In the United States, it has been defined through a series of judicial decisions. However, juries composed solely of one racial group are legal in the United States and other countries. While the racial composition of juries is not dictated by law, racial discrimination in the selection of jurors is specifically prohibited. Depending on context, the phrases "all-white jury" or "all-black jury" can raise the expectation that deliberations may be unfair.

Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a young African American woman, Juror 16, from a defendant's drug trial jury in a California court case, based on her youth and on her alleged "eye rolling" in answer to a question. The defendant, Steven Martell Collins, challenged the striking of Juror 16, saying her exclusion was based on race, but the trial judge agreed that the prosecutor's reasons were race-neutral. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling, and the Federal District Court dismissed Collins' habeas corpus petition with prejudice. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating that the dismissal was unreasonable based, among other reasons, on the lack of evidence that the eye rolling had occurred.

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex are unconstitutional. J.E.B. extended the court's existing precedent in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), which found race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials unconstitutional, and Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991), which extended that principle to civil trials. As in Batson, the court found that sex-based challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. The court had previously held in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but did not address whether defendants could use them. The court had already ruled in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991) that the Batson prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during the jury selection process.

Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in Spanish and English from juries that will consider Spanish-language testimony.

Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case about racial issues in jury selection in death penalty cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 7–2 majority, ruled that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove African American jurors violated the Court's earlier holding in Batson v. Kentucky. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

Jury selection in the United States is the choosing of members of grand juries and petit juries for the purpose of conducting trial by jury in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States constitutional criminal procedure</span> United States constitutional criminal procedure

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in United States juries</span>

The representation of women on United States juries drastically increased during the last hundred years because of legislation and court rulings. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, women were routinely excluded from jury service. The push for women's jury rights sparked a debate similar to that surrounding the women's suffrage movement. At the time, it permeated the media with arguments for and against. Federal and state court case rulings increased women's participation on juries. Some states allowed women to serve on juries much earlier than others, while also differing on whether women's suffrage also implied women's jury service.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.

Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17–9572, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors during a series of Mississippi criminal trials for Curtis Flowers, a black man convicted on murder charges. The Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky that the use of peremptory challenges solely on the basis of race is unconstitutional. This case examined whether the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in how it applied Batson to this case. The Supreme Court ruled that Flowers' case fell under Batson and that the state inappropriately removed most of the potential black jurors during the trials.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Powers v. Ohio, 499U.S.400 (1991).
  2. ↑ Shiga, Shun. "What is a Batson Challenge?". Appeals Law Group. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  3. ↑ Forman, James Jr. (2004). "Juries and Race in the Nineteenth Century". Yale Law Journal. 113 (4): 895–939 – via Gale Academic Onefile.
  4. ↑ "14th Amendment". National Constitution Center.
  5. 1 2 Stewart, David O. (July 1991). "Whither Peremptories?". Supreme Court Report. ABA Journal . 77 (7): 38, 40–42 – via JSTOR.
  6. 1 2 3 Wilson, Christopher T. (1992). "Powers v. Ohio: Race-Based Peremptory Challenges". University of Kansas Law Review. 40 (Criminal Procedure Edition): 219–236 – via HeinOnline.
  7. 1 2 Murray, Paul (1991–1992). "Holland v. Illinois and Powers v. Ohio: The Discriminatory Effect of the Peremptory Challenge Evaluated from the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments". Criminal Justice Journal. 13 (2): 335–356 – via HeinOnline.
  8. ↑ Hornthal, L. Phillip (Summer 1992). "Another Step Towards Ending Discrimination in the Jury Selection Process - Powers v. Ohio". Campbell Law Review. 14 (3): 369–383 – via Campbell University Institutional Repository.
  9. ↑ Holland v. Illinois, 493U.S.474 (1990).
  10. 1 2 Batson v. Kentucky , 499U.S.79 (1986).
  11. ↑ Bradley, Kirk (1992). "Milking the New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits the Peremptory Challenge on Racial Grounds in Powers v. Ohio and Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.". Pepperdine Law Review . 19 (2): 691–731 – via Pepperdine Digital Commons.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.