Batson v. Kentucky
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Washington's separate choice of a stronger state jury-selection rule is also noted below.
16,231 later cases cite Batson v. Kentucky; 1,424 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Batson v. Kentucky?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Criticized
-
Justice Graves's plurality opinion criticized Batson as vulnerable to manipulation and agreed that its test and the peremptory-challenge system should be reconsidered.
Flowers v. State · Supreme Court of Mississippi · filed
Because racially-motivated jury selection is still prevalent twenty years after Batson was handed down and because this case evinces an effort by the State to exclude African-Americans from jury service, we agree that it is "necessary to reconsider Batson's test and the peremptory challenge system as a whole."
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Justice Wiggins's lead opinion, joined by Justice Owens, criticized Batson as ineffective at preventing race-based jury strikes and addressing unconscious discrimination.
State v. Saintcalle · Supreme Court of Washington · filed
Twenty-six years later it is evident that Batson, like Swain before it, is failing us.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Washington Supreme Court criticized Batson's protections as insufficiently robust to combat racial discrimination in jury selection.
City of Seattle v. Erickson · Supreme Court of Washington · filed
Batson protections are not robust enough to effectively combat racial discrimination during jury selection.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Connecticut Appellate Court criticized weaknesses inherent in Batson's purposeful-discrimination standard while acknowledging that precedent bound it.
State v. Holmes · Connecticut Appellate Court · filed
We share many of the concerns expressed by Judge Lavine in his concurring opinion, but, as an intermediate state appellate court, we are, of course, bound by extensive precedent that limits our ability to remedy the weaknesses inherent in the Batson standard.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Connecticut Supreme Court criticized Batson as a framework with serious shortcomings concerning implicit bias and disparate impact.
State v. Holmes · Supreme Court of Connecticut · filed
Although Batson has serious shortcomings with respect to addressing the effects of disparate impact and unconscious bias, we decline to “throw up our hands in despair at what appears to be an intractable problem. Instead, we should recognize the challenge presented by unconscious stereotyping in jury selection and rise to meet it.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Washington Supreme Court reiterated that Batson was insufficiently robust to combat racial discrimination.
State v. Tesfasilasye · Supreme Court of Washington · filed
The protections under Batson3 were not robust enough to effectively combat racial discrimination during jury selection.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
A published dissent criticized Batson as ineffective against hidden discrimination.
State of Washington v. Jose Carlos Hernandez · Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three · filed
Thus, the Batson test did little to end discrimination and, in particular, hidden discrimination.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The district court held Batson inapplicable where the prosecutor left two Black prospective jurors unstruck.
Fleming v. Kemp · M.D. Ga. · filed
Batson does not apply to the situation in the present case, because the prosecutor did not strike all the black jurors even though he could have done so.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The First Circuit held Batson nonretroactive on collateral review and reversed a pre-Batson habeas grant.
Michael Simpson, A/K/A Woods v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · First Circuit · filed
Because we do not think that the rule announced in Batson should be applied retroactively to the instant case, we reverse the district court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held Batson unavailable retroactively on collateral review of convictions that became final before Batson was announced.
Allen v. Hardy · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Batson should not be applied retroactively on collateral review of convictions that became final before our opinion was announced.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Illinois Appellate Court declined to apply Batson to a case pending on direct review, a temporal restriction later displaced by Griffith v. Kentucky.
People v. Taylor · Illinois Appellate Court, Third District · filed
We decline to give Batson retroactive application.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Arizona Court of Appeals limited Batson to trials beginning on or after the decision date, a temporal restriction later displaced by Griffith v. Kentucky.
State v. Dogan · Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two · filed
For these reasons, we will apply the Batson rule prospectively only. Thus, as Batson v. Kentucky was decided on April 30, 1986, it applies to any trial beginning on or after that date.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court held that Allen v. Hardy foreclosed retroactive use of Batson in a collateral attack.
United States ex rel. Miller v. O'Leary · N.D. Ill. · filed
The Allen court explicitly concluded that “Batson should not be applied retroactively on collateral review of convictions that became final before our opinion was announced.” 106 S.Ct. at 2880. I will not obscure the Supreme Court’s bright line in the manner petitioner suggests.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The en banc Seventh Circuit held that Allen v. Hardy barred retroactive application of Batson to Teague's final conviction.
Frank Teague v. Michael Lane · Seventh Circuit · filed
Thus, Teague’s case is “final” for purposes of applying Batson retroactively and therefore our review of Teague’s appeal is limited solely to his sixth amendment argument, an argument the Supreme Court declined to consider in Batson.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit treated Batson as unavailable on federal habeas review and adjudicated Garrett's jury-discrimination claim under Swain.
Gerald Duane Garrett v. Terry Morris · Eighth Circuit · filed
Garrett’s claim that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges violated his right to equal protection of the laws is governed by Swain v. Alabama. ... Swain was overruled in part in Batson v. Kentucky ... Garrett concedes, however, that the ruling in Batson does not apply retroactively to a case on federal habeas review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Mississippi held Batson unavailable on collateral review because Caldwell's conviction was final before Batson was decided.
Caldwell v. State · Supreme Court of Mississippi · filed
A reading of this chapter convinces us that Caldwell's case was not, at the time Batson was decided, on direct appeal, but was on collateral review of a conviction that had achieved finality before Batson was rendered. Thus, applying the rationale of Allen v. Hardy, the challenge to the prosecutor's peremptory challenges need not be reviewed under the more liberal guidelines of Batson.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals declined to extend Batson to private counsel's peremptory challenges in a civil case.
Parker v. Downing · Alabama Court of Civil Appeals · filed
Because the only authority for extending Batson into the civil arena mandates that there be state action involved in the use of the peremptory challenges, Clark, and there is no state action involved when private counsel exercises peremptory challenges, we decline to extend Batson to this particular case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that Batson could not benefit a habeas petitioner whose conviction became final before Batson was decided.
Teague v. Lane · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We find that Allen v. Hardy is dis-positive, and that petitioner cannot benefit from the rule announced in Batson.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held that Batson would not apply retroactively to a completed civil trial.
Jones v. Lewis · Sixth Circuit · filed
In balancing the facts that the decision in Batson constituted a clear break from existing precedent, that retroactive application would not further the purposes of the decision, and that retroactive application could produce inequitable results, we hold that Batson should not be retroactively applied in civil actions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals refused to extend Batson beyond racial discrimination to gender-based peremptory strikes.
Daniels v. State · Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
In our view, Batson offers no authority for the extension of the principles contained therein beyond racial discrimination. If such an extension is to be warranted, we think it best that it be done by the United States Supreme Court or the Alabama Supreme Court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit held that Batson did not apply retroactively to Walton's conviction because it became final before Batson was decided.
David E. Walton v. Paul Caspari · Eighth Circuit · filed
Batson cannot be applied retroactively to cases that were final on April 30, 1986, the date Batson was decided. Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 260, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 2881, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986) (per curiam).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eleventh Circuit held that Batson did not apply because Love's conviction became final before Batson was decided.
Jimmy Louis Love v. Charlie Jones · Eleventh Circuit · filed
Because Love’s conviction became final on November 30, 1984, when the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari on direct appeal, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) does not apply to this case. Instead, Swain v. Alabama governs.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that Batson did not extend to gender-based peremptory strikes.
Fisher v. State · Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
This court has previously held that the standards of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), do not extend to "gender based" peremptory strikes:
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Missouri Court of Appeals refused to extend Batson to gender-based peremptory strikes.
State v. Pullen · Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District · filed
Nevertheless, this court finds itself firmly bound by the overwhelming weight of precedent holding that Batson applies no further than the parameters of racial discrimination.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals declined to extend Batson to gender-based peremptory strikes.
Murphy v. State · Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
The law currently states that Batson does not extend to gender-based strikes.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eleventh Circuit held that Batson did not govern Horton's collateral challenge because his conviction became final before Batson.
Jimmy Lee Horton v. Walter Zant · Eleventh Circuit · filed
While a portion of Swain was prospectively overruled in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the Court in Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986), held that Swain still governed those cases which became final prior to the Court’s decision in Batson. Horton's conviction became final when the United States Supreme Court denied his request for a writ of certiorari in 1983. Therefore, Horton's claim is covered by Swain, not Batson.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit held Batson unavailable because the prisoner's conviction became final before Batson was decided.
James H. Bell, Jr. v. Dennis Baker · Sixth Circuit · filed
It is obvious that as the petitioner’s case became final on direct appeal before Bat-son was decided, the rule from Batson does not apply, as it is not retroactive.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Illinois Appellate Court held that Batson's prospective application afforded Teague no relief in his state post-conviction proceeding.
People v. Teague · Illinois Appellate Court · filed
It is Teague’s misfortune, however, that the holding in Batson was of no direct benefit to him because of its prospective application.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Illinois Appellate Court held that a defendant whose conviction was final before Batson could not bring a Batson claim on collateral review.
People v. Hartfield · Illinois Appellate Court · filed
Under these circumstances, defendant cannot bring a Batson claim. Therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed defendant’s equal protection claim without a hearing, if the basis for the claim was Batson or the relief sought was a Batson hearing.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh Circuit held that Batson did not apply retroactively to Logan's collateral challenge to a conviction final before Batson.
Marrion Logan v. Richard B. Gramley · Seventh Circuit · filed
The court, however, was simply following Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986), which held that Batson did not apply retroactively on collateral review of convictions, like Logan's, that became final before Batson was announced.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit held Batson unavailable in Blair's collateral challenge and reviewed his jury-selection claim only under Swain.
Walter J. Blair v. Bill Armontrout · Eighth Circuit · filed
The Supreme Court, however, has made clear that Bat-son principles will not be retroactively applied to cases pending at that time on collateral review. Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 259-61, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 2880-81, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986) (per curiam). Although we agree that this circumstance is disadvantageous to Blair, we still may review this issue only under principles of Swain.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals declined to extend Batson from peremptory strikes to random jury shuffles.
Wearren v. State · Texas Ninth Court of Appeals · filed
Appellant cites no authority for this extension of Batson from peremptory strikes to random jury shuffles, and we find none. Consequently, we decline to make the broad extension of Batson that appellant seeks.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that Batson did not apply retroactively to Johnson's collateral petition.
Commonwealth v. Johnson · Pennsylvania Superior Court · filed
As discussed infra, we would further note that Appellant cannot benefit from the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), since such does not apply retroactively in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals declined to extend Batson to strikes based on a prospective juror's association with a person with a disability.
Giddens v. State · Texas Tenth Court of Appeals · filed
We have not found, nor has Giddens cited, any case law extending Batson to those who have known someone with a disability. We decline to do so today.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that Smith was not entitled to retroactive application of Batson because he failed to preserve the jury-selection challenge.
Commonwealth v. Smith · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · filed
Accordingly, because Appellant did not object during voir dire, he did not preserve a challenge to the Commonwealth’s use of peremptory strikes. Because he did not preserve his challenge, he is not entitled to the retroactive application of Batson, and cannot succeed on this claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals declined to extend Batson to discriminatory jury shuffles.
Scott Allen Willis III v. State · Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals · filed
Appellant does not cite any binding authority extending the Batson holding to encompass a jury shuffle, and we have found none. Consequently, we apply a decision of the court of appeals that transferred this appeal to us, which has declined to extend Batson in the manner appellant seeks.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that Batson's burden-shifting protection does not extend to collateral review of an unpreserved claim.
Commonwealth v. Roane · Pennsylvania Superior Court · filed
While Batson shifted the burden of proof from defendants to prosecutors, such protection does not extend to collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Batson v. Kentucky and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace