Business Law and the Regulation of Business 11th Edition by Richard Mann, Barry Roberts

تمرين 3

FACTS Thaddeus Donald Edmonson, a construction worker, was injured in a job-site accident at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Edmonson sued Leesville Concrete Company for negligence in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, claiming that a Leesville employee permitted one of the company's trucks to roll backward and pin him against some construction equipment. Edmonson invoked his Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury. During voir dire, Leesville used two of its three peremptory challenges authorized by statute to remove black persons from the prospective jury. When Edmonson, who is himself black, requested that the District Court require Leesville to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the two jurors, the District Court ruled that the precedent on which Edmonson's request relied applied only to criminal cases and allowed the strikes to stand. A jury of eleven whites and one black brought in a verdict for Edmonson, assessing total damages at $90,000. It also attributed 80 percent of the fault to Edmonson's contributory negligence and awarded him only $18,000. On appeal, a divided en banc panel affirmed the judgment of the District Court, concluding that the use of peremptory challenges by private litigants did not constitute state action and, as a result, did not violate constitutional guarantees against racial discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
DECISION Judgment for Edmonson.
OPINION Kennedy, J. We must decide in the case before us whether a private litigant in a civil case may use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race. ***
***
*** Although the conduct of private parties lies beyond the Constitution's scope in most instances, governmental authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that its participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints. ***
*** Our precedents establish that, in determining whether a particular action or course or conduct is governmental in character, it is relevant to examine the following: the extent to which the actor relies on governmental assistance and benefits, [citations]; whether the actor is performing a traditional governmental function, [citations]; and whether the injury caused is aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of governmental authority, [citation]. Based on our application of these three principles to the circumstances here, we hold that the exercise of peremptory challenges by the defendant in the District Court was pursuant to a course of state action.
*** It cannot be disputed that, without the overt, significant participation of the government, the peremptory challenge system, as well as the jury trial system of which it is a part, simply could not exist. As discussed above, peremptory challenges have no utility outside the jury system, a system which the government alone administers. In the federal system, Congress has established the qualifications for the jury service, [citation], and has outlined the procedures by which jurors are selected. ***
The trial judge exercises substantial control over voir dire in the federal system. [Citation.] *** Without the direct and indispensable participation of the judge, who beyond all question is a state actor, the peremptory challenge system would serve no purpose. By enforcing a discriminatory peremptory challenge, the court ''has not only made itself a party to the [biased act], but has elected to place its power, property and prestige behind the [alleged] discrimination.'' [Citation.] ***
*** The peremptory challenge is used in selecting an entity that is a quintessential governmental body, having no attributes of a private actor. The jury exercises the power of the court and of the government that confers the court's jurisdiction. *** In the federal system, the Constitution itself commits the trial of facts in a civil cause to the jury. Should either party to a cause invoke its Seventh Amendment right, the jury becomes the principal fact-finder, charged with weighing the evidence, judging the credibility of witnesses, and reaching a verdict. The jury's factual determinations as a general rule are final. [Citation.] In some civil cases, as we noted earlier this Term, the jury can weigh the gravity of a wrong and determine the degree of the government's interest in punishing and deterring willful misconduct. *** And in all jurisdictions a true verdict will be incorporated in a judgment enforceable by the court. These are traditional functions of government, not of a select, private group beyond the reach of the Constitution.
***
Finally, we note that the injury caused by the discrimination is made more severe because the government permits it to occur within the courthouse itself. Few places are a more real expression of the constitutional authority of the government than a courtroom, where the law itself unfolds. *** To permit racial exclusion in this official forum compounds the racial insult inherent in judging a citizen by the color of his or her skin.
INTERPRETATION The U.S. Constitution imposes restrictions against racial discrimination in the jury selection process.
ETHICAL QUESTION What are ethical grounds for an attorney to exercise a peremptory challenge? Explain.
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION What grounds should be disallowed in the exercise of peremptory challenges? Explain.