Peremptory Challenges and National Origin: Watson v. Ricks

Abstract

During voir dire in criminal trials, prosecutors and defense attorneys can challenge potential jurors to remove them from the jury pool These challenges can be based on cause when a juror displays bias or incompetence. Attorneys also can use a limited, specified number of peremptory challenges to remove jurors for any or no reason, without showing cause. Until recently, there were few if any restrictions on how peremptory challenges could be employed. However, the Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), held that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause prohibits prosecutors from using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on their race. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court applied the Batson rule to prohibit peremptory challenges based on ethnic origin, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), and gender, J.E.B, v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (1994). The Supreme Court has never considered whether Batson prevents peremptory challenges based on national origin. This issue arose in Watson v. Ricks, and in his unpublished report and recommendation to District Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern District of New York, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV concluded that the Batson rule additionally prevented peremptory challenges based on national origin. He thus recommended that the petitioner's writ of habeas corpus be granted. The Supreme Court has determined that when a Batson objection is raised, the following procedure takes place: