Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Maryland

Re: Civil right

Rather than explain it myself, here's the language

of a Maryland case explaining the concept:

In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court held that, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a criminal defendant who is a member of a cognizable racial group can challenge the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors of the defendant's race. The Supreme Court has since applied Batson in a civil case. See Edmondson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991). In addition, in Gilchrist v. State, 340 Md. 606, 620-21 (1995), the Court of Appeals held that Batson applied to peremptory challenges aimed at excluding white prospective jurors from the venire based on their race.

In Gilchrist, the Court of Appeals adopted the following three step process, first set forth by the Supreme Court in Batson, to determine whether the exercise of peremptory strikes is discriminatory:

"First, the complaining party has the burden of making a prima facie showing that the other party has exercised its peremptory challenges on an impermissible discriminatory basis, such as race or gender. . . ." Gilchrist, 340 Md. at 625. Generally, a prima facie showing of discrimination is satisfied by showing a pattern of strikes against same race jurors. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97.

"Second, once the trial court has determined that the party complaining about the use of the peremptory challenges has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the party exercising the peremptory challenges to rebut the prima facie case by offering race neutral explanations for challenging excluded jurors. . . ."

"Finally, the trial court must "determine whether the opponent of the strike has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination." Gilchrist, 340 Md. at 625-26 (citations omitted).