• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

(317) 639-4511

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Harrison Moberly LLP

Law Firm in Indianapolis, IN

  • HOME
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • Appellate Law
    • Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor Relations
    • Business Services
    • Construction Law
    • Employment Law
    • Environmental
    • Estate Planning, Wealth Transfer and Tax
    • Family Law
    • Insurance Services
    • Law Practice Succession Planning
    • Litigation Services
    • Mediation Roundtable LLC and Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Real Estate
    • Tax Controversy and Dispute Resolution
  • ATTORNEYS
    • A-K
      • Lisa M. Adler
      • Thaddeus R. Ailes
      • Stephen E. Arthur
      • Ashley A. Butz
      • Raeanna Carrell
      • William “Jay” Hancock
      • Natalie Hatfield
      • Lee L. Heyde
      • Don Hopper
    • L – Z
      • Patricia Polis McCrory
      • James J. McGrath
      • Tamie Jo Morog
      • Rory O’Bryan
      • Chad E. Oswald
      • Mark W. Pfeiffer
      • Fred D. Scott
      • Martha T. Starkey
      • David J. Theising
  • NEWS, EVENTS, & BLOGS
  • BILL PAY
  • LOCATIONS
  • Attorneys
    • A – K
      • Lisa M. Adler
      • Thaddeus R. Ailes
      • Stephen E. Arthur
      • Ashley A. Butz
      • Raeanna Carrell
      • William “Jay” Hancock
      • Natalie Hatfield
      • Lee L. Heyde
      • Don Hopper
    • L – Z
      • Patricia Polis McCrory
      • James J. McGrath
      • Tamie Jo Morog
      • Rory O’Bryan
      • Chad E. Oswald
      • Mark W. Pfeiffer
      • Fred D. Scott
      • Martha T. Starkey
      • David J. Theising
  • Practice Areas
    • Appellate Law
    • Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor Relations
    • Business Services
    • Construction Law
    • Employment Law
    • Environmental
    • Estate Planning, Wealth Transfer and Tax
    • Family Law
    • Insurance Services
    • Law Practice Succession Planning
    • Litigation Services
    • Mediation Roundtable LLC and Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Real Estate
    • Tax Controversy and Dispute Resolution
  • Bill Pay
  • Locations
  • (317) 639-4511

INDIANA CASE LAW UPDATE: Proper Use Of Peremptory Challenges In Jury Trials

March 10, 2009 //  by Stephen Arthur




Indiana Case Law Update

 

PROPER USE OF PEREMTORY CHALLENGES IN JURY TRIALS

 

       Stephen E. Arthur

            A “peremptory challenge” is an objection to a prospective juror that may be asserted without stating a reason or cause. Peremptory challenges are governed by Trial Rule 47 and Indiana Jury Rule 18. The peremptory challenge has “very old credentials” in Indiana litigation and operates to reject rather than select prospective jurors. It is an important tactical tool, the use of which is often guided more by a party’s intuitive impressions about a prospective juror, rather than the actual answers a juror provides in voir dire. In this manner, the peremptory challenge is very different from a challenge for cause. As noted by the Indiana Supreme Court, “Unlike challenges for cause, the peremptory is often exercised on ‘hunches’ and impressions having to do, perhaps, with a prospective juror’s habits, associations, or ‘bare looks.’” Merritt v. State, 488 N.E.2d 340, 341 (Ind. 1986). Although the exercise of a peremptory challenge is virtually unrestricted, there is one important limitation – the challenge may not be used in a constitutionally impermissible manner, such as to exclude jurors because of race or gender. This limitation is affirmed in Jury Rule 18(d) which states:

If it appears to the court that a particular peremptory challenge may have been used in a constitutionally impermissible manner, the court upon its own initiative may (a) inform the parties of the reasons for its concern, (b) require the party exercising the challenge to explain its reasons for the challenge, and (c) deny the challenge if the proffered basis is constitutionally impermissible.

 

Jury Rule 18(d) is modeled after the 3-part analysis established by the United States Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). That case, a criminal action, held the Equal Protection Clause forbids a prosecutor from peremptorily challenging potential jurors solely on the basis of race, or on the assumption that jurors of one race will be unable to impartially consider the state’s case against a defendant of the same race. Batson has been extended to prevent a criminal defendant’s attorney from engaging in purposeful racial discrimination when exercising a peremptory challenge, Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), and the Batson procedure is also applicable to Indiana civil actions.  See, Wilson v. Kauffman, 563 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). The Batson prohibition against using a race-based peremptory challenge applies equally to prevent a minority party from improperly striking white jurors from the jury pool. This principle was recently affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court in Jeter v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 645 (2008).

In Jeter, a jury found Jeter guilty of murder in the shooting death of an Indiana State Trooper. On appeal, Jeter challenged a trial court ruling that denied him the ability to strike a white juror following a Batson proceeding. During voir dire, Jeter used his first nine peremptory challenges to exclude six white males and three white females. The State objected on grounds that Jeter had excluded these jurors on the basis of race and perhaps gender. Initially, the trial court overruled these objections. However, when Jeter attempted to use his next and 10th peremptory challenge to exclude a nineteen-year-old white male (“Juror 212”), the State again objected. This time the trial court initiated a Batson analysis and instructed Jeter to demonstrate a race-neutral reason for striking Juror 212. Jeter responded that Juror 212’s father was a police officer, his grandfather had been a local attorney and judge, and the juror had responded “I guess not” when asked if he could think of any murders that were not suitable for the death penalty. Although the reasons given for striking Juror 212 constituted a “race-neutral” explanation under Indiana law, the trial court rejected Jeter’s explanation, calling it a “pretext,” and disallowed the peremptory challenge. 

On transfer, Jeter argued that his “pattern” of striking whites from the jury was the “inevitable consequence” of a jury pool that was predominately white, and that striking white jurors was part of a trial strategy intended to secure a more racially diverse jury. In rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court stated a number of principles that amplify the intended application of Batson. First, a peremptory challenge may not be used to offset the effects of a predominately white jury pool. Second, the trial court is not bound to accept a valid race-neutral explanation where the court concludes the striking party has used the peremptory challenge to advance purposeful racial discrimination. Third, although the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding purposeful discrimination rests with the party opposing the strike, it is the trial court’s duty to determine the “persuasiveness of the justification” and deny the challenge if it is constitutionally impermissible. 

 

 

Stephen Arthur is a partner with Harrison & Moberly, LLP (www.harrisonmoberly.com) concentrating his practice in federal and state business and tort litigation.  He is the author of Indiana Civil Trial Practice, and co-author of Harvey’s Indiana Rules of Procedure Annotated. The opinions and analysis expressed in this column are those of the author.

 

You May Also Be Interested In:

Estate Planning Considerations for New Parents

David Theising to Speak at 2021 Annual Meeting of ABA Forum on Construction Law in New York City

Execute Documents Remotely

Parenting Time During Governor Holcomb’s Stay at Home Order

Estate Planning During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

Virtual Estate Services

Estate Administration During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

Harrison & Moberly proudly sponsors 2019 APABA-IN Central Regional Conference

Hopper Appointed as Member of the Probate Code Study Commission

Previous Post: « INDIANA CASE LAW UPDATE: Merging Merits Trial With Preliminary Injunction
Next Post: Harrison & Moberly, LLP Attorney Elected Chair-Elect of the Indiana State Bar Association Taxation Section »

Primary Sidebar

Twitter

26 Sep 1574502378233122816

HM is excited to announce that Lisa M. Adler and Ashley A. Butz, members of the firm’s estate planning practice, have been named members to the Estate Planning Council of Indianapolis.

Reply on Twitter 1574502378233122816Retweet on Twitter 1574502378233122816Like on Twitter 15745023782331228161Twitter 1574502378233122816
30 Aug 1564625082563137548

Harrison Moberly is proud to recognize and congratulate its 2023 Best Lawyers!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison Moberly is proud to
Reply on Twitter 1564625082563137548Retweet on Twitter 1564625082563137548Like on Twitter 15646250825631375481Twitter 1564625082563137548
25 Feb 1497260344577867776

Harrison & Moberly, LLP is proud to recognize and congratulate its 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Star!

https://t.co/dtMUm1Bzfk

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison & Moberly, LLP is
Reply on Twitter 1497260344577867776Retweet on Twitter 1497260344577867776Like on Twitter 1497260344577867776Twitter 1497260344577867776
1 Jun 2021 1399791212056530945

Harrison & Moberly is pleased to officially return to the Downtown office today and celebrated the occasion with a Taco Tuesday lunch to catch up with each other in person!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison & Moberly is pleased
Reply on Twitter 1399791212056530945Retweet on Twitter 1399791212056530945Like on Twitter 13997912120565309451Twitter 1399791212056530945
18 Nov 2019 1196439093527416833

For the 3rd year, H&M Attorneys Mark Pfeiffer and Fred Scott attended the 2019 Tippecanoe County Veterans Stand Down event on November 2, 2019, to provide pro bono legal advice on issues that routinely impact Indiana veterans! We are so grateful for their dedication and service!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: For the 3rd year, H&M
Reply on Twitter 1196439093527416833Retweet on Twitter 1196439093527416833Like on Twitter 11964390935274168331Twitter 1196439093527416833
Load More...

Recent Posts

Estate Planning Considerations for New Parents

Starting a family involves preparation and thinking ahead. …

David Theising to Speak at 2021 Annual Meeting of ABA Forum on Construction Law in New York City

Harrison & Moberly attorney David Theising has been invited …

Execute Documents Remotely

We will soon be able to assist clients in executing their estate …

Parenting Time During Governor Holcomb’s Stay at Home Order

During the current World upheaval, parents are looking for …

Estate Planning During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

During this frightening time, we are all reminded of life’s …

Footer

INDIANAPOLIS
(317) 639-4511

8335 Keystone Crossing
Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46240

CARMEL
(317) 639-4511

760 S Rangeline Road
Suite 164
Carmel, IN 46032

LEBANON
(317) 639-4511

114 South Meridian St.
Suite A
Lebanon, IN 46052

Site Footer

The information contained on this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.

Copyright © 2023 Harrison and Moberly LLP · All Rights Reserved ·