The diverse and representative character of the jury must be maintained "partly as assurance of a diffused impartiality and partly because sharing in the administration of justice is a phase of civic responsibility. Today we are faced with the question whether the EqualProtection Clause forbids intentional discrimination on the basis of gender, just as it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.
The situation would be different if both sides systematically struck individuals of one group, so that the strikes evinced groupbased animus and served as a proxy for segregated venire lists. The Court justified the differential exemption policy on the ground that women, unlike men, occupied a unique position "as the center of home and family life.
In recent cases we have emphasized that individual jurors themselves have a right to nondiscriminatory jury selection procedures. Batson mini-hearings are now routine in state and federal trial courts, and Batson appeals have proliferated as well.
Will we, in the name of fighting gender discrimination, hold that the battered wife - on trial for wounding her abusive husband - is a state actor?
Inthe Court finally repudiated the reasoning of Hoyt and struck down, under the Sixth Amendment, an affirmative registration statute nearly identical to the one at issue in Hoyt. In so doing, we make the peremptory challenge less discretionary and more like a challenge for cause.
The Court also spends time establishing that the use of sex as a proxy for particular views or sympathies is unwise, and perhaps irrational.
Porter III argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. As late asthree States, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, continued to exclude women from jury service.
The price to be paid for this display - a modest price, surely - is that most of the opinion is quite irrelevant to the case at hand. This does not mean, of course, that every jury must contain representatives of all the economic, social, religious, racial, political and geographical groups of the community; frequently such complete representation would be impossible.
In Alabama, the "struck-jury" system is employed, a system which requires litigants to strike alternately until 12 persons remain, who then constitute the jury. The peremptory challenge is "a practice of ancient origin" and is "part of our common law heritage.
See also Lewis, supra, at ; United States v. This interest does not change with the parties or the causes. II Discrimination on the basis of gender in the exercise of peremptory challenges is a relatively recent phenomenon. This does not mean, of course, that every jury must contain representatives of all the economic, social, religious, racial, political and geographical groups of the community; frequently such complete representation would be impossible.
See also Cleburne v. In recent cases we have emphasized that individual jurors themselves have a right to nondiscriminatory jury selection procedures. See Personnel Administrator of Mass.
Once seated, a juror should not give free rein to some racial or gender bias of his or her own. This Court in Ballard v. We do not dispute that this Court long has tolerated the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, but this is not a reason to continue to do so. Discrimination on the basis of gender in the exercise of peremptory challenges is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Post, at discriminatory peremptory challenges have "coexisted with the Equal Protection Clause for years" ; post, at there was a "year interlude between our holding that exclusion from juries on the basis of race was unconstitutional, [Strauder], and our holding that peremptory challenges on the basis of race were unconstitutional, [Batson]".
He intimates that discrimination on the basis of gender in jury selection may be rational, see post, at 2, but offers no "exceedingly persuasive justification" for it.
In this regard, it is important to recognize that a juror sits not as a representative of a racial or sexual group but as an individual citizen.On behalf of relator T. B., the mother of a minor child, respondent State of Alabama filed a complaint for paternity and child support against petitioner J.
E. B. in the District Court of Jackson County, Alabama.
The State of Alabama used preemptory challenges in such a way as to create an all female jury in a paternity case. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “Intentional discrimination on the basis of gender by state actors violates the Equal Protection Clause, particularly where.
Plaintiff, J.E.B., challenged the lower courts’ decision allowing Respondent, the state of Alabama, to use its peremptory challenges to remove all the male jurors. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits a party to use their peremptory challenges to remove.
Case opinion for US Supreme Court J.E.B. v. ALABAMA EX REL. T.B. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. us1$35Z PAGES OPINPGT J.
E. B. v. ALABAMA ex rel. T. B. Opinion of the Court John F. Porter III argued the cause and ﬁled briefs for petitioner.
Michael R. Dreeben argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the. J. E. B., PETITIONER v. ALABAMA ex rel.
T. B. on writ of certiorari to the court of civil appeals of alabama [April 19, ]Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. Although premised on equal protection principles that apply equally to gender discrimination, all our recent cases defining the scope of Batson involved alleged racial .Download