The use of peremptory challenges in American criminal trials has been found to be racially discriminatory despite race-based motivation being unconstitutional in jury selection. One argument made in defense of peremptory challenges is that the prosecution and the defense counteract each other, and “cancel out” each other’s impact. Using data from 208 criminal trials in Mississippi, this study examines whether the prosecution and defense counteract each other and what impact this has on juries. Findings suggest that the prosecution has a significant effect on the defense’s use of peremptory challenges. Although the average proportion of Black jurors is not significantly different as a result of peremptory challenges, the greater dispersion in proportions increases the volatility in jury composition.
AnwarS.BayerP.HjalmarssonR. (2012). The impact of jury race in criminal trials. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(2), 1017–1055.
2.
BaldusD. C.WoodworthG.ZuckermanD.WeinerN. A.BroffittB. (2001). The use of peremptory challenges in capital murder trials: A legal and empirical analysis. Journal of Constitutional Law, 3, 3–172.
3.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
4.
BennettM. W. (2010). Unraveling the Gordian knot of implicit bias in jury selection: The problems of judge-dominated voir dire, the failed promise of Batson, and proposed solutions. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 4, 149–171.
5.
BowersW. J.SandysM.BrewerT. W. (2004). Crossing racial boundaries: A closer look at the roots of racial bias in capital sentencing when the defendant is black and the victim is white. DePaul Law Review, 53(4), 1497–1538.
6.
CohnA.SherwoodD. (1999). The rise and fall of affirmative action in jury selection. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32, 323–333.
7.
CowanC. L.ThompsonW. C.EllsworthP. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors’ predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53–79.
DeCampW. (2020). Gender and the peremptory challenge: Separating the effects of race and gender in jury selection. Women & Criminal Justice, 31(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2020.1785372
11.
DeCampW.DeCampE. (2020). It’s Still About Race: Peremptory Challenge Use on Black Prospective Jurors. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 57, 3–30.
12.
EisenbergA. M. (2017). Removal of women and African-Americans in jury selection in South Carolina capital cases, 1997-2012. Northeastern University Law Journal, 9, 299–346.
13.
EllisL.DiamondS. S. (2003). Race, diversity, and jury composition: Battering and bolstering legitimacy. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78(3), 1033–1058.
14.
FlanaganF. X. (2015). Peremptory challenges and jury selection. The Journal of Law and Economics, 58(2), 385–416.
15.
FlanaganF. X. (2018). Race, gender, and juries: Evidence from North Carolina. The Journal of Law and Economics, 61(2), 189–214.
16.
Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17–9572, 588 U.S. ___ (2019).
17.
FramptonT. W. (2018). The Jim Crow jury. Vanderbilt Law Review, 71(5), 1593–1654.
18.
FramptonT. W. (2020). For cause: Rethinking racial exclusion and the American Jury. Michigan Law Review, 118(5), 785–839.
19.
FukuraiH.ButlerE. W.KroothR. (1991). Where did black jurors go? A theoretical synthesis of racial disenfranchisement in the jury system and jury selection. Journal of Black Studies, 22(2), 196–215.
20.
FukuraiH.DaviesD. (1997). Affirmative action in jury selection: Racially representative juries, racial quotas, and affirmative juries of the Hennipin model and the jury de medietate linguae. Virginia Journal of Sociology, Policy and Law, 4, 645–681.
21.
GauJ. M. (2016). A jury of whose peers? The impact of selection procedures on racial composition and the prevalence of majority-white juries. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 75–87.
22.
Georgia v. McCollum (91-372), 505 U.S. 42 (1992).
23.
GrossoC. M.O’BrienB. (2012). A stubborn legacy: The overwhelming importance of race in jury selection in 173 post-Batson North Carolina capital trials. Iowa Law Review, 97, 1531–1559.
24.
J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994).
25.
JohnsonS. L. (1985). Black innocence and the white jury. Michigan Law Review, 83(7), 1611–1708.
26.
KaltB. C. (2003). The exclusion of felons from jury service. American University Law Review, 53(1), 65–189.
27.
KalvenH.Jr.ZeiselH. (1966). The American jury. Little, Brown and Company.
28.
LiJ.KarakowskyL.SiegelJ. P. (1999). The effects of proportional representation on intragroup behavior in mixed-race decision-making groups. Small Group Research, 30(3), 259–279.
29.
McGonigleS.BeckaH.LafleurJ.WyattT. (2005, August21). A process of juror elimination: Dallas prosecutors say they don’t discriminate, but analysis shows they are more likely to reject black jurors. Dallas Morning News, A1.
30.
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-3. (2010). Peremptory challenges; number allowed.
31.
RoseM. R. (1999). The peremptory challenge accused of race or gender discrimination? Some data from one county. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 695–702.
32.
RoperR. T. (1980). Jury size and verdict consistency: ‘A line has to be drawn somewhere’?Law and Society Review, 14(4): 977–995.
33.
SaksM. J. (1977). Jury verdicts: The role of group size and social decision rule. D.C. Heath.
34.
SmithA. (1998). Nice work if you can get it: Ethical jury selection in criminal defense. Fordham Legal Review, 67, 523–568.
35.
SommersS. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 597–612.
36.
SommersS. R.NortonM. I. (2007). Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications: Experimental examination of peremptory use and the Batson challenge procedure. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 261–273.
37.
SommersS. R.NortonM. I. (2008). Race and jury selection: Psychological perspectives on the peremptory challenge debate. American Psychologist, 63(6), 527–539.
38.
TurnerB. M.LovellR. D. (1986). Race and peremptory challenges during voir dire: Do prosecution and defense agree?Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 61–69.
39.
ValentiA. C.DowningL. L. (1975). Differential effects of jury size on verdicts following deliberation as a function of the apparent guilt of a defendant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(4), 655–663.
40.
WilkenfeldJ. (2004). Newly compelling: Reexamining judicial construction of juries in the aftermath of grutter v. bollinger. Columbia Law Review, 104(8), 2291–2327.
41.
WrightR. F.ChavisK.ParksG. S. (2018). The jury sunshine project: Jury selection data as a political issue. University of Illinois Law Review, 2018(4), 1–47.
