SHOULD PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES BE ABOLISHED?
On June 12, 2009, I had the honor of serving on a panel for the joint Louisiana State Bar Association and Louisiana Judicial College seminar titled, “The Changing Face of Jury Selection: Batson and its Practical Implications – Should Peremptory Challenges Be Eliminated?” The other panelists were Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal; Frederika “Ricky” Wicker, Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal; John E. Conery, Judge of the 16th Judicial Court and President of the Louisiana District Judges Association; James B. Doyle, Attorney; and Henry Minor Pipes, III, Attorney. Of particular note is that Jim Doyle was the trial and appellate lawyer in the landmark case of Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. 111 S.Ct 2077, which he argued (and won) before the United States Supreme Court. It is also noteworthy that Judge Thibodeaux, an excellent appellate judge and top graduate of Dartmouth, who served as moderator of this 90 minute lively and dynamic discussion, is the only one of the panelists who advocates abolition of peremptory challenge. While I am adamantly opposed to the elimination of the peremptory challenge and am of the view that it has an important place in the jury selection process, I do believe that the number of peremptory challenges available in civil court should be reduced from 6 to, perhaps 4 or 5. In non-capital criminal cases, the legislature could consider reducing peremptory challenges from 12 to 8, as it did for one year in the mid-1980s. In capital cases, I think the number should remain 12.
I have always maintained and in fact advocated the view that we should have a good cross section of the community on each jury. I adhere to the law that the impermissible exercise of peremptory challenges based on race and gender will not be tolerated. Every lawyer who has an upcoming jury trial in civil or criminal court should know this line of cases. There are several outlines which I have prepared through the years which you can access under the seminars tab of this website. Those cases (which are discussed by this panel) include at least the following: Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 111 S. Ct. 2077 (1991); Georgia v. McCollum, 112 S.Ct. 2348 (1992); J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 114 S.Ct 1419 (1994); Purkett v. Elem, 115 S.Ct 1769 (1995); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct 1029 (2003); Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S.Ct. 2317 (2005); State v. Allen Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 9/6/09), 942 So.2d 484; Snyder v. Louisiana 552 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct 1203 (2008) – (which reversed the 2006 La. Supreme Court opinion); and Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service, Et Al, 05-1457 (La. 1/26/07), 951 So.2d 138.
|
Tom Pace interviews Judge Scott Crichton re: Angelo Roppolo 