Rivera v. Illinois

556 U.S. 148 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was charged with first-degree murder. It was alleged that D, a Hispanic shot and killed Marcus Lee, a 16-year-old African-American, after mistaking Lee for a member of a rival gang. D questioned prospective juror Deloris Gomez. D sought to use a peremptory challenge to excuse her. At that point in the jury's selection, D had already used three peremptory challenges. Two of the three were exercised against women; one of the two women thus eliminated was African-American. Illinois law affords each side seven peremptory challenges. The trial judge called counsel to chambers, where he expressed concern that D was discriminating against Gomez. D responded, first, that Gomez saw victims of violent crime on a daily basis. Counsel next added that he was 'pulled in two different ways' because Gomez had 'some kind of Hispanic connection given her name.' At that point, the judge interjected that Gomez 'appears to be an African American'--the second 'African American female' D had struck. Dissatisfied with counsel's proffered reasons, the judge denied the challenge to Gomez but agreed to allow counsel to question Gomez further. D asked additional questions about her work at the hospital, and D renewed his challenge. D observed, outside the jury's presence, that most of the jurors already seated were women. D said he hoped to 'get some impact from possibly other men in the case.' The court reaffirmed its earlier ruling, and Gomez was seated on the jury. With Gomez as its foreperson, the jury found D guilty of first-degree murder. The Appellate Court of Illinois rejected D's challenge to the trial judge's Batson ruling and affirmed his conviction. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed D's conviction in that 'that the record fails to support a prima facie case of discrimination of any kind.' The court determined, the trial judge erred, first in demanding an explanation from D's counsel, and next, in denying D's peremptory challenge. It then ruled that the improper seating of Gomez ranked as 'reversible error without a showing of prejudice.' It held that the 'Constitution does not confer a right to peremptory challenges.' The error was held to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.