Peter Pleuresy is a professional athlete. He commits a gun crime in New York City and then flees to Georgia. He is arrested there by local authorities on an unrelated drunk and disorderly charge. Georgia authorities realize he is wanted in New York and arrange to transport him there after he spends one night in a local jail for the drunk and disorderly matter. Shortly after his arrival in New York City, Peter sits before a grand jury. At the grand jury proceeding, prosecutors introduce evidence seized from Peter's home before police acquired a warrant. Prosecutors admit that this evidence was taken in violation of the 4th Amendment, but use it anyway. The 23 jurors on the grand jury vote unanimously to indict.
-Assume Peter is a Mexican-American. The prosecutor decides to systematically exclude Mexican-Americans from the grand jury pool. Which of the following statements is true?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The statement that "there is Supreme Court case law which Peter's lawyers might be able to use as grounds for appeal on this matter" is true. In the landmark case Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use peremptory challenges to systematically exclude potential jurors based on their race. While this case pertains specifically to trials, subsequent cases have extended the Batson ruling to cover other stages of the criminal justice process, including grand jury proceedings. Therefore, Peter's lawyers may be able to use the Batson precedent as grounds for appeal if they can show that the prosecutor systematically excluded Mexican-Americans from the grand jury pool. However, the other statements are not true - there is no Supreme Court case law that specifically addresses prosecutorial discretion in grand jury proceedings, and the use of illegally-seized evidence is a separate issue altogether.

Peter Pleuresy Is a Professional Athlete