recognizing that inference of purposeful discrimination would be raised on evidence that prosecutor, “in case after case, whatever the circumstances, whatever the crime and whoever the defendant or the victim may be,” removes qualified African-American prospective jurors who have survived challenges for cause, so that no African-Americans “ever serve on petit juries”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that inference of purposeful discrimination would be raised on evidence that prosecutor, “in case after case, whatever the circumstances, whatever the crime and whoever the defendant or the victim may be,” removes qualified African-American prospective jurors who have survived challenges for cause, so that no African-Americans “ever serve on petit juries”
- holding that in order to prove a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, a defendant must show that black jurors had been systematically excluded from juries over a long period of time
- holding that in order to prove a violation of the equal protection clause of *533 the fourteenth amendment, a defendant must show that black jurors had been systematically excluded from juries over a long period of time
- stating that function of peremptory challenge is "to assure the parties that the jurors before whom they try the case will decide on the basis of the evidence placed before them, and not otherwise"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)
Listed in the Constitution Annotated's table of Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision (entry 186, expressly overruled).
Overruled — as noted by 2 later courts
See Batson, 476 U.S. at 100 n. 25, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (“To the extent that anything in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), is contrary to the principles we articulate today, that decision is overruled.”).
2 citing opinionsin partOverruled on other grounds by Swain v. Alabama, 381 U.S. 921 (1965)
Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 825, 13 L.Ed.2d 759, overruled on other grounds, 381 U.S. 921, 85 S.Ct. 1528, 14 L.Ed.2d 442 (1965).
Declined to follow by People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258 (1978)
For the reasons stated, the rule of Swain v. Alabama is not to be followed in our courts and the cases applying it are disapproved to that extent.
Declined to follow by Fields v. People, 1987 Colo. LEXIS 491 (1987)
allenges from the record, reasons that are unrelated to membership in the group, we do not believe it necessary to order a new trial or to remand the case to the district court for a hearing that would allow the prosecution to articulate his reasons for dismissing these jurors.21 Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals that the defendant’s conviction be upheld, but we reject the court’s reliance on…
Distinguished
Distinguished by Walter J. Blair v. Bill Armontrout, Walter J. Blair v. William Armontrout William Webster, 976 F.2d 1130 (1992)
The Swain issue here is distinguishable from the readily apparent conflict of interest issue in Simmons.
Distinguished by Ex Parte Haliburton, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 140 (1988)
Thus, the trial judge concluded that the Swain holding was inapplicable to applicant’s case and that applicant had not been denied any rights under the constitution of the United States or of Texas.3 The trial judge also
The opinion
Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring.
In joining the opinion of the Court, I deem it appropriate to emphasize my understanding that the Court reserves, and does not decide, the question which in Part III of its opinion it finds not presented by the record in this case.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.