SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW CLAIM OF
BIASED JURY SELECTION
Oral argument in Johnson v. California set
for Monday, April 18
A California murder case challenging the state's standard
for evaluating charges of racial bias in jury selection will be the
subject of oral argument in the United States Supreme Court this Monday.
The case of Johnson v. California involves a claim made
by Jay Shawn Johnson, who was convicted in 1998 of the second-degree
murder of his girlfriend's 18-month-old daughter.
Johnson, who is black, argues that at his trial the prosecution used
peremptory challenges of potential jurors to remove all the blacks from
his jury. While both the defense and the prosecution have the right
to use their peremptory challenges to remove a potential juror without
having to provide any justification, the Supreme Court's 1986 decision
in Batson v. Kentucky creates an exception to this right.
Batson holds that racially motivated peremptory challenges
violate the Equal Protection Clause. The California Supreme Court had
come to the same conclusion in an earlier decision, People v.
Wheeler. Under Batson, if the party makes a prima
facie (arguable) case that a peremptory challenge is racially motivated
then the opponent must provide a race-neutral explanation for the challenge
or the challenge will be lost. The California Supreme Court held in
Wheeler that the party must prove discriminatory intent by a preponderance
of the evidence before the opponent must give a neutral reason for the
peremptory challenge. California's high court has subsequently held
that Wheeler is consistent with the Batson
standard. In the Supreme Court, Johnson argues that the California evidence
requirement is higher than the one established by the United States
Supreme Court decision in Batson.
"This is an important case because thousands of criminal defendants
convicted in California have claimed that prosecutors intentionally
kept minorities off of their juries," said Charles Hobson, an Attorney
with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "A decision to weaken
the evidence requirement would make it easier for defendants of any
race to sidetrack their trials for months or perhaps years with meritless
claims of racial bias," he added.
At his trial, Johnson claimed that the death of the little girl was
an accident. He stated that after he bumped her with his foot, the infant
started wheezing and had trouble breathing. The defense claimed that
the infant died after Johnson attempted to administer CPR by pounding
too hard on her chest. The prosecution presented evidence that Johnson
had both kicked and punched the infant.
During jury selection, prior to Johnson's trial, the prosecutor used
three of his twelve peremptory challenges to strike the three black
jurors from the panel. After striking the second one, Johnson's defense
attorney claimed racial bias, arguing that there was no other apparent
reason for the challenge. The trial judge denied the claim for lack
of evidence. After the third black juror was challenged, Johnson again
claimed bias. The judge reviewed the answers given by the juror on the
questionnaire and found that her sister had been charged with drug abuse
and that the juror admitted having difficulty understanding things.
The judge concluded that either party would have been justified in striking
her.
The state Court of Appeal reversed Johnson's conviction, ruling that
the state standard was higher than required under the federal Constitution
for proving a discrimination claim. After the California Supreme Court
overturned that ruling, reinstating Johnson's conviction, the case was
accepted by the high court for review last year, but was later dismissed
to allow consideration of unresolved claims by the state courts. Following
state court decisions rejecting those claims, the Supreme Court agreed
to decide the racial bias matter this year. The Foundation has joined
the case with an amicus curiae brief arguing that California's standard
of proof for claims of bias in the selection of jurors is fair and consistent
with Supreme Court decisions. "We don't want to see these claims,
which currently serve a legitimate purpose, transformed into fishing
expeditions for evidence of discrimination," added Hobson.
CJLF Associate Attorney Charles Hobson can be reached
for comment at (916) 446-0345.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has helped win three U. S.
Supreme Court decisions in the Court's current term. The Foundation's
brief in this case is available at:
http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/JohnsonJ2.pdf
|
