Solving the Batson paradox: harmless error, jury representation, and the Sixth Amendment.

From: Yale Law Journal | Date: October 1, 1996| Author: Muller, Eric L. | Copyright information

I. Introduction: The Batson Paradox

"[E]very right ... must have a remedy . . . .'"(1) Although this idea runs deep through our jurisprudence, it is not strictly true. The challenge is to determine which rights are so important as to require a remedy. Sometimes this is easy, as in the case of Batson v. Kentucky,(2) which established that the Equal Protection Clause forbids prosecutors from exercising peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors on account of the...

Read all of this article with a FREE trial to HighBeam Research

Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles from HighBeam Research

Solving the Batson paradox: harmless error, jury representation, and the Sixth Amendment.
Yale Law Journal ; I. Introduction: The Batson Paradox [E]very right must have a remedy . . . .' (1) Although this idea runs deep through our jurisprudence, it is not strictly true. The challenge is to determine which rights are so important as to require a remedy. Sometimes this is easy, as in the case of Batson v.
Court Splits On Coerced Confessions; Majority Rules Use Of Statement Can Be `Harmless Error'
The Washington Post ; A deeply divided Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the use of a coerced confession is not automatic grounds for overturning a criminal conviction. Voting 5 to 4, the court said some convictions may be allowed to stand despite the use of confessions obtained in violation of the defendant's
Rule of law, or rule of five? (Supreme Court)
The Nation ; THE JUSTICES DECIDE During her confirmation hearings Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly described the role of Supreme Court Justice as one of enforcing the rule of law. When she begins to work on the Court's cases, through, she may find that her colleagues have a different idea of the job. Justice
'Harmless error.' (Supreme Court decides convictions may stand even if jury wrongly allowed to hear coerced confession as long as there is enough other evidence to sustain verdict) (editorial)
The Nation ; With the help of the newly appointed David Souter, a 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court has decided that a conviction may stand even if the jury is wrongly allowed to hear a coerced confession, so long as there is enough other evidence to sustain the verdict. It apparently makes no difference
Court stance on confessions stuns many legal experts
The Boston Globe ; WASHINGTON -- Criminal defense attorneys, law professors and civil libertarians say they are astonished at a Supreme Court ruling that opens the door to use of coerced confessions as evidence in criminal trials. "It defies logic," said Sam Dash, a Georgetown University professor who served as chief