Quantifying disparate questioning of Black and White jurors in capital jury selection

Author:

Effenberger Anna1,Blume John H.2,Wells Martin T.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Statistics and Data Science Cornell University Ithaca New York USA

2. Cornell Law School Cornell University Ithaca New York USA

Abstract

AbstractNumerous studies have demonstrated that female and Black jurors are under‐represented on juries in criminal cases, especially so when the prosecution seeks the death penalty. The primary, but not exclusive, way in which this happens is that prosecutors remove them from the jury pool through the exercise of peremptory challenges. The practice remains widespread despite the Supreme Court's decision more than 30 years ago holding that using such challenges in a racially (or gender based) discriminatory manner violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the years since, enforcement by the Supreme Court and state and federal courts has been uneven. However, in several recent cases, in finding that prosecutors struck Black venire persons because of their race, the Supreme Court relied in part on evidence that the prosecution questioned Black and White venire persons differently. The legal term of art for this practice is “disparate questioning.”

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Law,Education

Reference63 articles.

1. Alkebulanyahh v. Byars. (2015).No. 6:13‐CV‐00918‐TLW 2014 WL 8849503 (D.S.C. Nov. 5 2014) supplemented No. 6:13‐CV‐00918‐TLW 2015 WL 2381351 (D.S.C. Mar. 3 2015) report and recommendation adopted No. 6:13‐CV‐00918‐TLW 2015 WL 2381353 (D.S.C. May 18 2015) and report and recommendation adopted No. 6:13‐CV‐00918‐TLW 2015 WL 2381353 (D.S.C.May 18 2015).

2. Baldus D. C. Grosso C. M. Dunham R. &Woodworth G.(2012).Statistical Proof of Racial Discrimination in the Use of Peremptory Challenges: The Impact and Promise of the Miller‐El Line of Cases as Reflected in the Experience of One Philadelphia Capital Case 97 IOWA L. REV. 1425.https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ilr97&i=1435

3. Batson v. Kentucky. (1986).476 U.S.

4. Bennett v. Stirling. (2016).842 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2016); State v. Blackwell 801 S.E.2d 713 (S.C. 2017).

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3