holding a three-step inquiry is necessary to determine whether a party has violated Batson, i.e., used peremptory challenges in a way that violates the Equal Protection Clause: first, the opponent of the strike must make a prima facie showing the proponent of the strike exercised it on the basis of a juror’s cognizable racial background; second, the burden then shifts to the proponent of the strike to articulate a race-neutral explanation for removing the potential juror in question; and finally, the trial court must determine whether the opponent of the strike has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination
How later courts described this case
- holding a three-step inquiry is necessary to determine whether a party has violated Batson, i.e., used peremptory challenges in a way that violates the Equal Protection Clause: first, the opponent of the strike must make a prima facie showing the proponent of the strike exercised it on the basis of a juror’s cognizable racial background; second, the burden then shifts to the proponent of the strike to articulate a race-neutral explanation for removing the potential juror in question; and finally, the trial court must determine whether the opponent of the strike has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination
- holding that under Batson, once the opponent of a peremptory challenge has made out a •prima facie case of racial discrimination (step one), the burden of proof shifts to the one making the challenge to come forward with a race neutral explanation (step two). If a race-neutral explanation is given, the trial court must then decide whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful racial discrimination (step three)
- explaining when evaluating a Batson claim that “[d]iscriminatory purpose . . . implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected . . . a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” (ellipses in original) (quotations omitted)
- recognizing that in the Batson context, “where the defendant has done everything that would be required of him if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case, whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant” (quoting U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983) (brackets omitted))
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Pruitt v. State, 986 So. 2d 940 (2008)
The State argues that Hernandez is inapplicable to the case at hand because in Hernandez, the trial court never ruled on whether the defendant had established a prima facie case.
Distinguished by Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Association, 459 F.3d 676 (2006)
The cases that MHSAA cites to the contrary, such as Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991), are inapposite because they involve facially neutral classifications, rather than facially gender-based classifications.
Distinguished by State v. Allen, 913 So. 2d 788 (2005)
Thus, the rule of Hernandez is inapplicable because the district court did not rule "on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination," i.e., step three, having found the Batson challenge had failed for lack of a prima facie showing of discriminatory intent in the first step of the analysis.
Distinguished by Communities For Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Association, Inc., 377 F.3d 504 (2004)
The cases that MHSAA cites to the contrary, such as Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991), are inapposite because they involve facially neutral classifications, rather than facially gender-based classifications.
The opinion
Justice Blackmun,
dissenting.
I dissent, essentially for the reasons stated by Justice Stevens in Part II of his opinion, post, at 378-379.