It "appears" that the state of Washington has created a new bright-line rule for the first prong of a Batson claim. As most know, Batson established a three-part test to determine whether a prospective juror was peremptorily challenged for improper reasons e.g., because of the juror's race or gender.
To maintain a successful Batson claim, one must first establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the use of a peremptory challenge against a juror. Second, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to come forward with a race-neutral explanation for challenging the prospective juror. Finally, the trial court determines whether the party making the initial challenge has established purposeful discrimination.
According to the dissent in State v. Rhone, which was adopted by the Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice, and thus became the rule of law:
a defendant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination when, as here, the record shows that the State exercised a peremptory challenge against the sole remaining venire member of the defendant's constitutionally cognizable racial group.
In Rhone, the defendant was black and the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike the only blck person in the venire (pool of potential jurors). Unfortunately, for the defendant in Rhone, this rule will be applied to all future trials and thus not impact his case. For a summary of the Rhone case see, Wash. must explain when striking minority jurors.
Comments