# Batson challenges **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 4, 2004, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/batson-challenges/243528 "2004-05-04T21:22:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/batson-challenges/243528/1 "2004-05-04T21:22:55Z")
In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=196494&highlight=batson), **Bricker** implies that the practical effect of _Batson_was to eliminate race-based jury selection as a reason for appealing a conviction. I was reading some of the CT Supreme Court decisions in the appeals of a group of related cases involving two brothers, Russell and Adrian Peeler. In Adrian’s case, his attorney challenged the conviction based on the dismissal of one venireman, a black woman. The attorney had raised a _Batson_ challenge during jury selection, but the trial court had accepted the prosecution’s explanation. The opinion is [State of Connecticut v. Adrian Peeler (SC 16571)](http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR267/267cr25.pdf) (Warning! PDF file!). Given the earlier discussion in that thread, I have the following questions: 1: CT, at least, seems to allow appeals on claims racially discriminatory jury selection, even if the trial court rejects a _Batson_ claim. Is this generally the case? **Bricker** seems to imply that this is not the case, but I may not be reading his statements correctly. 2: How often is a _Batson_ challenge upheld, in the experience of the working attorneys here? Is it just a song and dance that every one in the courtroom already knows the end result of, or do these challenges keep the prosecution honest[sup]1[/sup]? 3: Are claims of racially discriminatory jury selection raised based on the dismissal of a single venireman ever accepted? It would seem to me that logic would only raise a claim of discrimination if there was a pattern of dismissals. [sup]1[/sup]I know that these challenges can be made by either side, but the thrust of the commentary seems to be focused on preserving the rights of the defendant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/batson-challenges/243528/2 "2004-05-04T22:45:31Z")
> [@paperbackwriter](#): > > Given the earlier discussion in that thread, I have the following questions: > 1: CT, at least, seems to allow appeals on claims racially discriminatory jury selection, even if the trial court rejects a _Batson_ claim. Is this generally the case? **Bricker** seems to imply that this is not the case, but I may not be reading his statements correctly. It’s unclear to me where, in the linked thread, I suggested that an appeal was not permitted if the trial court rejected a _Batson_ claim. What I said, or implied, in the previous thread was that such appeals are seldom successful. And, indeed, that’s true, as this case demonstrates. The trial court considered the defense’s _Batson_ claim and rejected it, and the appellate court upheld that determination: > [@](#): > > The trial court concluded that the reasons offered by the state’s attorney for striking A.F. were race neutral, supported by the record and not pretextual. The court thereupon overruled the defendant’s objection to the state’s use of a peremptory challenge to strike A.F. On appeal, the defendant renews his claim of a Batson violation. We agree with the state that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s determination was clearly erroneous. The reason that such challenges are so often unsuccessful on appeal rests in large measure on the standard of review. The appellate court gives great deference to the fact-finding of the trial court judge. Since the trial judge is in a position to assess the credibility of counsel as they offer their explanations, the trial court’s decision is overrulled only: > [@](#): > > … [if] it is clearly erroneous. . . . A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. > [@paperbackwriter](#): > > 2: How often is a _Batson_ challenge upheld, in the experience of the working attorneys here? Is it just a song and dance that every one in the courtroom already knows the end result of, or do these challenges keep the prosecution honest[sup]1[/sup]? As I suggest above… success of Batson challenges was, in my experience, not common. What would usually happen is the judge would hear the challenge, say that he didn’t find a prima facie case established, but, notwithstanding that finding, invite the prosecution to offer up the race-neutral explanation. That way, the record got made - in other words, the judge wouldn’t be smacked on abuse-of-discretion for not finding a prima facie case and not even asking for the race-neutral explanation. > [@paperbackwriter](#): > > 3: Are claims of racially discriminatory jury selection raised based on the dismissal of a single venireman ever accepted? It would seem to me that logic would only raise a claim of discrimination if there was a pattern of dismissals. I suppose if the only African-American member of the venire was struck, you might have a chance at a challenge. But the more strikes there are, the better the case gets. Again, in practice, it would be inconceivable to me to hear of a _Batson_ challenge based on a single premptory strike. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/batson-challenges/243528/3 "2004-05-04T23:40:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s unclear to me where, in the linked thread, I suggested that an appeal was not permitted if the trial court rejected a _Batson_ claim. What I said, or implied, in the previous thread was that such appeals are seldom successful. And, indeed, that’s true, as this case demonstrates. I misunderstood you, then. The part of your earlier post that brought the question to mind was: > [@Bricker](#): > > In practice, it merely foreclosed effective appeals based on the racial composition of juries. I now see that the operative word here was “effective”. Apologies. > [@Bricker](#): > > I suppose if the only African-American member of the venire was struck, you might have a chance at a challenge. But the more strikes there are, the better the case gets. Again, in practice, it would be inconceivable to me to hear of a _Batson_ challenge based on a single premptory strike. > > - Rick From what I read in the decision, the defendant appealled on the basis of only one strike. Would there be others not referred to in the decision? Or do you mean “…to hear of a successful _Batson_ challenge…”? Or am I misunderstanding you again? Lastly, if you could, what would you replace the current _Batson_ challenges with? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/batson-challenges/243528/4 "2004-05-05T00:20:35Z")
> [@paperbackwriter](#): > > From what I read in the decision, the defendant appealled on the basis of only one strike. Would there be others not referred to in the decision? Or do you mean “…to hear of a successful _Batson_ challenge…”? Or am I misunderstanding you again? My bad. I should have said “…a _successful_ Batson challenge.” > [@](#): > > Lastly, if you could, what would you replace the current _Batson_ challenges with? Good question. I suppose I’d favor eliminating the premptory challenge system entirely – you build the venire with random selections drawn from driver’s licenses and voting registrations, and if you can’t challenge a propsective juror for cause, they are seated. That approach undoubtedly suffers from flaws as well, but at least one of them is not the unabashed gaming of the system that Batson now creates. - Rick