In 1986, the Supreme Court decided Batson v. Kentucky. The decision stood for the proposition that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees that the government cannot exclude members from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of a particular race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors. In other words, prosecutors could not use “peremptory challenges,” the power to eliminate a given number of jurors without specific cause, for racially-based reasons.
Subsequent decisions have extended Batson’s protection to gender.
Now the Third Circuit has decided a case (US v. Dejesus) in which a prosecutor struck jurors based on their responses to a questionnaire that showed they were heavily involved in religious activities. Dejesus argued that, under Batson’s logic, religion was just as impermissible a touchstone as race. The government argued that it wasn’t targeting a specific religion, but rather people that were heavily religious.
I don’t want a debate about the merits of Batson. Given that Batson is the law of the land… What Should Dejesus Do?
I don’t think it should be a “can always kick” or “can’t ever kick” thing: I think if a particular religion has tenets that are relevant to a case, then kicking members of that religion should be allowed. I realize that’s still pretty broad (e.g., it would allow all Catholics to be kicked on death penalty cases). So, given your summary and no other facts or legal knowledge beyond Law and Order episodes, Judge Metacom rules for Batson on this one.
Seriously, I can’t see where you told us which way the case was decided. Your question implies that they decided against him, or her. If he has a lot of extra money just laying around he should probably appeal.
I think he’s right in his legal argument, but I’m too lazy to look up the basis for the 3rd Circuit’s reasoning.
I deliberately left out the Third Circuit’s decision, since my question was more along the lines of “What SHOULD the rule be?” rather than “What is the rule in the Third Circuit?”
But since you ask, the Third Circuit decided that Dejesus was out of luck, and affirmed his conviction, ruling that prosecutors could use peremptory challenges to remove jurors they thought were too religious.
I think Dejesus should suck it up. Heavily religious people should be subject to peremptory challenges if the case warrants. Do you really think Pat Robertson could fairly hear a case involving a Muslim defendant?
Pat Robertson is a specific individual whose made statements that indicate he couldn’t judge such a case fairly–your example doesn’t seem like a good argument for being able to kick any religious person from any case.
Can you think of a case where all heavily religious people should be excluded from serving as a jurror on? Given the incredible diversity of religious belief, I have a hard time thinking of an example…
But the problem with Mr Robertson is surely that he is a bigot, not that he is religious. Could Polycarp or tomndebb fairly hear a case involving a Muslim defendant?
In the same vein, though, Polycarp and Tom~ are also individuals with exceptional intelligence and integrity. These are traits that not everyone has. The attorneys, whether for the prosecution or defense, can’t know the personal integrity of each potential juror. It seems reasonable to me that in certain cases, overt religiousness can prejudice a juror and peremptory challenges are prudent. IIRC, the attorneys only have so many challenges they can make without grounds so they won’t be using this without discretion.
But yes, I can think of a case where heavily religious people may not be suitable jurors. Let’s imagine a case where, say, club owners in Los Angeles decide to challenge the city’s rule that they can’t serve alcohol if there are nude dancers. Heavily religious people are probably prejudiced in the case and have their minds made up before the start.
Would someone heavily involved in a Unitarian church have a problem with it? Hindu? Buddhist?
I’m not disagreeing with you that there are cases where individuals who ascribe to religious beliefs should be excluded. I just don’t think anyone who holds strong beliefs in any religion should be able to be rejected for that sole reason.
Would atheists be similarly excluded from a case, if it was assumed that their viewpoint would distort their thinking?
I am thinking of, for instance, an abortion clinic bombing where the accused was a fundamentalist. Wouldn’t an atheist be less likely to understand religious motives for such a crime, and therefore deny the accused a jury of his “peers”?
Hang on, can you not ‘discriminate’ on the basis of race at all, or only where it’s irrelevant? If there’s a case where people of one race are statistically more likely to vote one way, can you use that at all?
I thought that a peremptory challenge was one for which a reason need not be stated. Peremptory ordinarily is defined as “no challenge or discussion permitted.” Is there a different meaning in law?
I think that, in general, it’s not a good idea to exclude people for being religious unless that it can be shown that they have a particular prejudice against a group or religion that is relevant to the case. IOW, I would not strike Pat Robertson for being a fundy, buit I could see striking him for past public statements about Muslims which demonstrate a clear prejudice and would compromose his ability to fairly judge a Muslim defendant.
It’s akin to race in the sense that you can’t strike someone for being black but you could conceivably strike someone who says that white people are the “the Devil.”
Since no religious motive for bombing an abortion clinic could ever be exculpatory I don’t see how the ability to understand the motive would be relevant in such a case.
How about Nation of Islam members sitting on a jury involving a white accused of crimes against a black person? Excluding blacks in such a case would not be discrimination based on race, but on religious affiliation.
Assume none of the prospective jurors had ever made a racially biased remark or action, so they couldn’t be challenged for cause.
I think it would be fair to question them about their religious beliefs as they pertained to white people. If they said that they had a religious belief that white people were “devils” then it would be fair to dismiss them.
The original meaning was as you describe. But in Batson, the Supreme Court ruled that race could not be a reason, even for challenges where, previously, no reason need be given. They also established a procedure at trial: if the defense made a prima facie case of racial discrimination – that is, if they showed the judge that the prosecution was using peremptory challenges based on race – then the burden shifted to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation for his strikes. The judge would decide the credibility of that explanation.
No, you cannot offer as a suitable explanation “this race votes this way” statistically more frequently.
What should DeJesus do, you ask? Serve his time, then remember not to commit violent crimes in the future. What should his lawyer do? Argue the evidence and law better in his future cases, or plea-bargain better deals if the evidence and law are against his client - also, quit dreaming up obfuscating side issues instead of arguing the case.
Now for the obfuscating side issue: Should a characteristic that people choose to have be considered equivalent to one they cannot choose? That’s what you’re asking - if characteristics that are irrelevant to one’s ability to judge fairly and objectively are the same as ones that are relevant to it. Surely the fervency with which one holds one’s religious tenets will affect one’s ability to apply the law objectively whenever religion and law might be in conflict.
We’re talking about peremptory challenges… if a person cannot judge fairly and objectively, he may be removed for cause. The question is not about people that cannot judge fairly and objectively, in my view.
The question is: given a strongly religious potential juror, who nonetheless gives every indication he can follow the judge’s instructions concerning the law, may the prosecution use a challenge to remove that juror?
But that would be challenging them for cause, which is different.
IOW, how pre-emptory can a pre-emptory challenge be? The courts have already ruled that you can’t use it based on race or gender. Can you use it based on religion? Are there other classes of people you can use a pre-emptory challenge to remove, because you are assuming that they are all enough alike to want to get them off the jury?
What classes of people are exempt from the pre-emptory challenge, based only on their membership in that class?