Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Georgia v. McCollum

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionJury SelectionPeremptory ChallengesState ActionStandingSixth Amendment

Facts

Respondents, who are white, were indicted in Georgia for aggravated assault and simple battery against African-American victims. Before jury selection, the prosecution argued that respondents intended to strike African-American jurors on the basis of race and sought an order requiring race-neutral explanations if it established a prima facie Batson violation. The State emphasized that a substantial portion of the county population was African-American and that, with 20 peremptory challenges, respondents could remove all African-American potential jurors from a statistically representative panel. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that neither Georgia nor federal law prohibited criminal defendants from using peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner.

Issue

Does the Equal Protection Clause prohibit a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges? If so, does the defendant's use of peremptory challenges constitute state action, and may the State raise the excluded jurors' equal protection rights?

Rule

The Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in exercising peremptory challenges. A criminal defendant's use of peremptory challenges is state action for Equal Protection purposes, the State has standing to assert the excluded jurors' rights, and if the State makes a prima facie showing of racial discrimination, the defendant must provide a racially neutral explanation for the strikes.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a felony assault trial in Cleveland, defense counsel for Evan Pike tells co-counsel during jury selection that he plans to use peremptory strikes on Latino prospective jurors because he believes they will identify with the complaining witness. The prosecutor objects after defense counsel strikes three Latino panelists in a row and points to counsel's stated rationale.

If the prosecutor has made a prima facie showing of purposeful racial discrimination, what should the trial judge do next?

Explanation. The majority held that the Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the basis of race in exercising peremptory challenges. Once the State makes a prima facie showing, the defendant must provide a racially neutral explanation. The Court rejected the view that only prosecutors are constrained and also rejected the notion that peremptories are fundamental constitutional rights.