Georgia v. McCollum

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = Georgia v. McCollum
ArgueDate = February 26
ArgueYear = 1992
DecideDate = June 18
DecideYear = 1992
FullName = Georgia, Petitioner v. Thomas McCollum, William Joseph McCollum and Ella Hampton McCollum
USVol = 505
USPage = 42
Citation = 112 S.Ct. 2348
Prior =
Subsequent =
Holding = The Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory challenges.
SCOTUS = 1991-1993
Majority = Blackmun
JoinMajority = Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter
Concurrence = Thomas
Dissent = O'Connor
Dissent2 = Scalia
LawsApplied =

"Georgia v. McCollum", 505 U.S. 42 (1992), [ [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=505&page=42 505 U.S. 42] Full text of the opinion on Findlaw.com.] 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", ussc|454|312|1981, 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." [Ibid., at 54.] 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.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 505

References

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Middleton |first=Matthew J. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1992 |month= |title=The Impact of "Georgia v. McCollum": Is This the End of Race-Based Peremptory Challenges |journal=Howard Scroll: The Social Justice Law Review |volume=1 |issue= |pages=76 |issn=1070-3713 |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Vernon |first=Eric E. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1993 |month= |title="Georgia v. McCollum": An Unprincipled and Potentially Unjust Ending to the Peremptory Challenge Cases |journal=BYU Law Review |volume=1993 |issue= |pages=1019 |issn=0896-2383 |url=http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1993/3/ver.pdf |accessdate= |quote=