# Georgia v. McCollum > Supreme Court of the United States · June 18, 1992 · 505 U.S. 42 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432611 ## Case - **Full name:** GEORGIA v. McCOLLUM Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 18, 1992 - **Citations:** 505 U.S. 42; 112 S. Ct. 2348; 120 L. Ed. 2d 33; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3687 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rehnquist - **Judges:** Scalia, Blackmun, Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Kennedy, Soutek, Thomas, O'Connor, Scalía - **Cited by:** 1,048 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432611 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining that “a prohibition of the exercise of discriminatory peremptory challenges [does not] violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel . . . . [because] neither the Sixth Amendment right nor the attorney-client privilege gives a cr… - stating that the majority’s opinion, which extended Batson to a white defendant’s peremptory challenges aimed at removing all African-Americans from the jury, would apply with equal force to the case of a minority defendant’s exercise of peremptory challenges to remove white p… - holding a criminal defendant may not use a peremptory strike in a discriminatory manner because "[r]egardless of who invokes the discriminatory challenge, there can be no doubt that the harm is the same — in all cases, the juror is subjected to open and public racial discrimin… - holding that "[i]n our heterogenous society policy as well as constitutional considerations militate against the divisive assumption — as a per se rule — that justice in a court of law may turn upon the pigmentation of skin, the accident of birth, or the choice of religion" - holding that the State may challenge a criminal defendant’s peremptory strikes ## Opinion text CHIEF Justice Rehnquist, concurring. I was in dissent in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614 (1991), and continue to believe that case to have been wrongly decided. But so long as it remains the law, I believe that it controls the disposition of this case on the *60 issue of "state action” under the Fourteenth Amendment. I therefore join the opinion of the Court. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432611. Public record. Not legal advice.