Today, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCT) decided Rivera v. Illinois. The issue in Rivera is whether the erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's peremptory challenge requires an automatic reversal of conviction because it undermines the defendant's constitutional right to due process and an impartial jury. The SCT took on the case to resolve a "conflict among state high courts over whether the erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge requires automatic reversal of a defendant's conviction as a matter of federal law."
In Rivera v. Illinois, the trial judge mistakenly prevented the defendant from using his peremptory challenge against a potential juror. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the judge's failure to allow the defense's challenge was wrong, but the defendant's conviction did not have to be overturned because the seating of the juror was a harmless error rather than a structural one.
In upholding the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court, the SCT determined that a judge's denial of a peremptory challenge is not a structural error that requires a new trial. In writing for a unanimous court, Justice Ginsburg stated "[a] state trial court's good faith but erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's peremptory challenge, we hold, does not require automatic reversal of the defendant's conviction, provided that all persons seated on the jury are qualified and unbiased." Had the SCT ruled otherwise, it would have elevated the status of the peremptory challenge—an unlikely outcome in light of the growing criticism associated with using peremptory challenges.
For more background information on the case see SCOTUSblog, the ABA, Cornell's Legal Information Institute and Anne Reed's Deliberations blog.
Comments