Georgia v. McCollum
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Georgia_v._McCollum an entity of type: Thing
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. The court had previously held in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but didn't address whether defendants could use them. The court had already ruled in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991) that the Batson prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during the jury selection process.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Georgia v. McCollum
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Georgia, Petitioner v. Thomas McCollum, William Joseph McCollum and Ella Hampton McCollum
xsd:integer
14000372
xsd:integer
993776614
rdf:langString
O'Connor
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter
<second>
172800.0
xsd:integer
42
xsd:integer
505
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-26
xsd:integer
1992
rdf:langString
Georgia v. McCollum,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-18
xsd:integer
1992
rdf:langString
Georgia, Petitioner v. Thomas McCollum, William Joseph McCollum and Ella Hampton McCollum
rdf:langString
The Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory challenges.
rdf:langString
Georgia v. McCollum
rdf:langString
Blackmun
rdf:langString
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. The court had previously held in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but didn't address whether defendants could use them. The court had already ruled in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991) that the Batson prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during the jury selection process. However, in Polk County v. Dodson, the court had held that a public defender is not a state actor in the context of a lawsuit for inadequate legal representation. McCollum argued that Polk County was the controlling precedent, so public defenders are not state actors during jury selection. Writing for the court, Justice Harry Blackmun disagreed. Blackmun found that whether a public defender is a state actor "depends on the nature and context of the function he is performing." Just as he is a state actor in the context of personnel decisions like hiring and firing attorneys in his office, a public defender is a state actor in the context of peremptory challenges. Like in Edmonson, Blackmun found that race-based peremptory challenges by the defendant violate the Equal Protection Clause and are therefore unconstitutional.
rdf:langString
Thomas
rdf:langString
Rehnquist
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
4560