Batson Vs. Kentucky Case Study

FACTS: In Lexington, Kentucky officers were suspicious of a subject who was suspected to be a drug dealer. The officer initiated an observance of the subject’s movements and followed the subject to an apartment where the odor of marijuana was admitting. The officers made their presence known and immediately heard sounds that the believed were indications that the subject was destroying possible evidence. The officers knocked and explained they were making entry into the room. The officers forcefully enter the apartment and observed the primary subject, additional subjects, and drugs including paraphernalia in the open. The subject was brought to The Circuit Court where the court denied the motion of the defense team to remove the evidence from the case based on the entry of the officers being unjust due to not having a proper search warrant. The defense team entered a guilty plea to obtain the authorization to appeal The Circuit Courts ruling. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed this request which prompted The Supreme Court of Kentucky to reverse the decision. This action was based on the courts assumption that additional exigent circumstances did exist however, it did not proved the officers the proper authorization to conduct a

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

We find that the case does in fact violate the precedent Batson v. Kentucky which violated the 14th amendment protection clause. First the prosecutor had the intention to get rid of all juries that were black. One of the reasons is that in the prosecutor’s notes, the prosecutor have highlighted and marked with a “B” for anyone who was black. In addition the prosecutor had placed all of the black jurors on the “Definite NOs” list. On the list that the prosecutor had no white jurors were on the list. Finally the prosecutor had the names of the black jurors circled on his list. All of this violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment where everyone should be treated equally regardless of their

Similarly, there is need to examine whether race plays a role in determining if one is convicted or released. This is because an all-white bench convicted Hunt, who is of African American descent, of a crime he did not commit. Whether racial prejudice plays any role in our criminal and justice system needs critical examine since the law should be fair and equal before all. A non-discriminative judicial system will enhance public trust and eliminate cases of wrongful conviction.

The issue at hand is whether the use of peremptory challenges to remove a potential juror form the jury pool based on the race violates the equal protection

Paul Butler is an African American lawyer whom practiced as a prosecutor (2) specializing in white collar criminal defense and civil litigation (3). He graduated with honors from both Yale University and Harvard Law School (4). Butler is currently a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (5). Paul Butler is now considered a scholar in racial law (6). This particular article enters into this subject. The question that the article Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice system by Paul Butler is the role of race in black jurors’ decisions to acquit defendants in criminal cases, and what the role should be (1). Butler believes that this question is an important question to answer due to the

This influx has lead to greater numbers of whites on local juries, which has caused a trend in jury decisions that sentence African Americans and other minority groups at rates higher than what was occurring previously. While there is a problem with white juries convicting blacks at higher rates than other whites throughout the country, in Brooklyn this was traditionally not the case until the recent degree of gentrification that began to happen in the borough. This illustrates how gentrification has not only an economic impact on local ethnic groups, but also an impact on what they can expect from the justice system (Saul).

The rest of the jury realized the boy’s race was not a fact of the matter. The condition the boy was raised was not completely certain but as the jury even walked through every witness’s perspective; they were attempting to be as realistic as possible. The 10th juror was a racist but his perspective was useful nonetheless by teaching a lesson. This responsible approach resulted from an impartial jury with different perspectives and in law reviews such as, “Diversity and the Civil Jury”; it is made clear just how legal and important impartial juries can be. “The right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community has mostly been expounded upon in the context of the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial in criminal cases, but has been applied to civil cases as well.’ In order to ensure that juries serve “as instruments of public justice,” this requirement is designed to create “a body truly representative of the community” (Carbone 840). America is very diverse so it makes sense that a jury should reflect such a mixed society and leave racism at the door.

In modern-day America the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is controversial because there is substantial evidence confirming both individual and systemic biases. While there is reason to believe that there are discriminatory elements at every step of the judicial process, this treatment will investigate and attempt to elucidate such elements in two of the most critical judicial junctures, criminal apprehension and prosecution.

In today’s society, discrimination continues to affect millions of minorities from inappropriate name calling to being shot by a law enforcement officer because you were perceived to be dangerous. The underlying effects of racial discrimination are seen in all aspects of our society, especially in our social institutions. These social institutions range from the educational system to our government, yet racial discrimination is more evident in the criminal justice system. When analyzing how the criminal justice system discriminates against minorities we are able to do so through the visible disparities within the system. Unfortunately, these disparities display African Americans having the highest population rates in the criminal justice system, therefore, we can immediately conclude this disparity in population is due to the injustices conducted by the system. Thus, there is a need for urgent change not just within the criminal justice system but within all social institutions beginning with our government. This change should create greater opportunities for minorities to enter the political field in our government as well as promoting higher participating in voting. Yet, the criminal justice system within all its aspects practices discrimination due to its deeply interwoven prejudice, institutional racism, and socioeconomic status.

The judges and attorneys are responsible for asking a question from each juror to make sure they can serve fairly and impartially for a trial case. The peremptory challenge is a right to select a jury by rejecting a number of potential jurors. (Hall, 2014) The peremptory challenges may not be used in a discriminatory manner. Jurors can be eliminated by using a peremptory challenge at the start of trial without giving a proper reason for rejecting; however, striking a juror based on race and sex is a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Hall, 2014) Therefore, an individual serving as a juror cannot be discriminated against due to race or gender. If there has been evidence suggesting that a prosecutor used their peremptory challenges

The intersection of racial dynamics with the criminal justice system is one of longstanding duration. In earlier times, courtrooms in many jurisdictions were comprised of all white decision-makers. Today, there is more diversity of leadership in the court system, but race still plays a critical role in many

assistance of council, and procedural bars, venue, and jury selection, as well as potential racism by jurors. According to ( Tabak, 1999) “these reasons apply in cases in which the death penalty may be sought.” When illustrating the use of prosecutorial discretion two crime types that can be

Having a diverse bench is critical to having a successful criminal justice system. The United States court system follows a presumption of innocence, meaning those who enter a courtroom are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence is not always found in the courtroom. Every courtroom actor, whether consciously or unconsciously, has a bias towards the defendant and may even presume guilt before the case begins. This is especially true when there is a white judge acting on cases involving a defendant who is a part of the minority. Judges who represent the minority are not only unbiased towards defendants of their own race, but they also bring new perspectives to the bench (Haire & Moyer, 2015). They present ideas, understandings, and

The US courts were put in place to examine a case and make a legal decision that will settle the dispute. These courts have flaws that affect the outcome of justice being served and falsely incriminate the innocent. Courts utilize a jury to see the different perspectives throughout the trial and determine a verdict, while the judge creates a sentence appropriate to the offense. The jurors are required to come to a non-bias decision but that not always the situation. Decisions are sometimes made on the race, religion, ethnicity and/or sexual orientation of the defendant, no matter their innocence. In research done in “What It’s Like to Be Black in the Criminal Justice System”, Andrew