Before a criminal trial begins, the prosecution and the defense are allowed to question potential jurors before they are seated. The purpose of jury selection is to screen out any biases that might compromise a juror’s ability to render a fair and impartial verdict. Either side may challenge a juror “for cause,” meaning they fail to meet a basic requirement for serving as a juror.

A party may also make what is called a “peremptory challenge.” This means the prosecution or the defense objects to seating a juror without having to give cause. Basically, if an attorney simply has a “bad feeling” about a juror, they can exclude them from the final jury without having to give the judge a specific reason.

Normally, both sides have broad discretion to exercise peremptory challenges. But there are limits. In a famous 1986 decision, Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court held that peremptory challenges cannot be used by a prosecutor to eliminate potential jurors on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or religion. The court considered such actions to be a violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

To put it in simple terms–If there is a Black defendant on trial, the State’s Attorney cannot hide behind peremptory challenges to eliminate all prospective Black jurors from the trial. If a defendant believes that is what is taking place during their jury selection, they can raise a Batson challenge.

Court of Special Appeals Orders New Trial After Prosecutor Improperly Kicks Only Black Juror Off Panel

The Batson challenge is a three-party inquiry designed to ascertain whether a prosecutor had a nondiscriminatory reason for excluding a juror, or whether it was simply a pretext to get rid of jurors based on one of the protected characteristics listed above. As the Maryland Court of Special Appeals explained in a recent case, when considering a Batson challenge the trial judge must “assess whether the striking party acted consistently” in objecting to jurors based on a purportedly race-neutral reason.

The case before the Court of Special Appeals, Bennett v. State, involved a Cecil County defendant charged with assault and conspiracy to commit robbery. The defendant is Black. During jury selection, the State’s Attorney exercised a peremptory challenge against the only Black member of the panel. The defense raised a Batson challenge. The prosecution’s explanation for the challenge was that the Black juror said her mother had been the victim of a crime for which the perpetrator was not convicted. Consequently, the prosecutor was concerned this would lead the juror to “have some kind of either distrust in the prosecutor’s office or in law enforcement.”

The trial judge accepted the prosecutor’s reason and denied the Batson challenge. The seated jury proceeded to convict the defendant. The Court of Special Appeals ordered a new trial, however, finding the judge erred in not upholding the defendant’s Batson challenge. The problem, the Court explained, was that two white jurors were seated–without objection from the prosecution–even though they also had family members who were victims of crimes where the perpetrators were never convicted. As a result, the Court said the prosecution could not offer a “credible, racially neutral rationale” for eliminating the only Black juror from the panel.

Understanding the Impact of a Batson Challenge on Maryland Criminal Trials

The Batson challenge protects a defendant’s constitutional rights during jury selection. While it may appear to be a procedural issue, the implications of an improper denial or acceptance of a Batson challenge can alter the outcome of a criminal case. Maryland courts treat these matters seriously, especially when race-neutral explanations for excluding jurors appear inconsistent or unsupported by facts.

Why Batson Challenges Are More Than Legal Formalities

Raising a Batson challenge goes beyond technical objections. It serves as a safeguard to ensure the final jury is not shaped by discriminatory bias. In Maryland, trial judges must perform a thorough, step-by-step analysis when such challenges are raised. If a judge accepts a weak or inconsistent explanation from the prosecution (or the defense), it can undermine public confidence in the judicial process and lead to appeals or retrials, as seen in Bennett v. State.

The court’s responsibility is not only to ask for a reason behind the peremptory strike but to assess the credibility of that reason. When similar characteristics are present in jurors who are not struck (such as relatives who were crime victims), it casts doubt on whether the exclusion was truly race-neutral.

How Maryland Defense Attorneys Approach Jury Selection

Defense counsel often prepares well in advance for voir dire, not only to screen for jurors who may be biased but also to watch for any questionable actions by the prosecution. In potential Batson situations, a defense attorney may compare the treatment of different jurors and raise objections the moment a pattern becomes clear.

At the Law Office of Robert Castro, we understand how jury composition can affect a defendant’s chances at trial. We closely monitor voir dire proceedings and prepare to challenge any improper strike. When a Batson issue arises, we create a clear and factual record that can be preserved for appeal if necessary.

Appellate Remedies and Case Outcomes

If a Batson challenge is denied during trial and the record shows inconsistent treatment of jurors, the issue can be brought to the appellate court. As shown in Bennett, Maryland’s higher courts are willing to overturn convictions if they find discriminatory strikes improperly allowed to stand. However, success on appeal often depends on how well the trial record documents the objection and the court’s response.

This makes it essential for defendants to work with an experienced attorney to preserve trial errors. A properly raised Batson challenge not only protects the integrity of the jury but may also become a crucial factor in reversing a wrongful conviction.

Protecting Jury Fairness in Waldorf Criminal Trials

In any criminal case, especially those involving serious charges, the right to a fair and impartial jury must be guarded from the outset. At our firm, we remain vigilant during jury selection and are prepared to take action if constitutional rights are at risk. A Batson challenge is one of several tools we use to ensure that every client has the opportunity for a trial that reflects Maryland’s commitment to equal justice under the law.

Contact Waldorf Criminal Defense Lawyer Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.