Snyder v. Louisiana cont.

There seems to be several schools of thought on the recent Snyder v. Louisiana Supreme Court decision (more background information on the case can be found here). Some think the decision does little to alter the current judicial landscape in which defendants struggle to prove that a prosecutor exercised her peremptory challenge because of a juror's race (this is due, in large part, to the fact that almost any race neutral reason offered by the prosecutor for striking a juror is accepted by the court.)

They state that: "the Court's decision appeared to be a straightforward application of the 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky and sequels to it---decisions that barred race based uses of automatic ("peremptory") challenges in criminal trials. Scotus Blog

Others see the decision as far more significant: "the case seems to shift the burden of an ambiguous record from the opponent of the strike to the proponent of the strike." "The decision all but invites litigants to now raise the "mixed motives" issue." Volokh Conspiracy

And there are those somewhere in the middle: "A Narrow, Broad Opinion in Snyder." Deliberations

Personally speaking, I believe the Supreme Court was trying to send a message as indicated by the fact that this was the second remand of this case. Knowing the difficulty with proving a Batson claim and the dislike of some on the Court for peremptory challenges, this decision appears to emphasize the need for judges to be more than just courtroom decorations and take an active role in the jury selection process to include holding attorneys accountable when they improperly exercise their challenges. Put another way, lower courts need to thoroughly document on the record the prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge, especially if it even remotely looks as though it was based on race or gender.

Other interesting aspects of the Snyder decision include the voting pattern of the justices with Alito writing the majority opinion and Scalia and Thomas in dissent. Sentencing Law and Policy.

Some have also wondered about the standard of review used in the majority opinion:

"Batson provides a three-step process for a trial court to use in adjudicating a claim that a peremptory challenge was based on race. First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race[; s]econd, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question[; and t]hird, in light of the parties' submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination." Miller-El v. Dretke, supra, at 277 (Thomas, J., dissenting). (some have speculated that this was an attempt to sway or win-over Justice Thomas). Volokh Conspiracy

Finally, Court-O-Rama notes that "the trial court's ground's eye view is relied on by both the majority and the dissent. On the one hand, Justice Alito and company say 'shoulda known better,' trial court and fixed the situation. The Dissenting Duo say that *because* the trial court knows best, let'em be."

I would be interested in hearing from others about what they see as the long term impact, if any, of Snyder v. Louisiana.