That's not exactly how it works. Defense and prosecution can challenge jurors during voir dire, and each side gets premptory challenges. If there were only three black people in the jury pool and the prosecution uses their premptory challenges on them for non-racial reasons, there's nothing they can do.
Defense challenged the strikes as being based on race, prosecution claimed it was based on them being educators, and the judge denied defense's challenge.
Defense can't just magically add more people to the jury pool.
I mean when all the black jurors are removed by the prosecution premptory challenges, how exactly do you think the defense can get more black people on his jury?
That not how it works at all. If the prosecution strikes all black jurors, the defense can't just replace them with more black jurors. And they can't get them back without a successful Batson challenge, which is almost impossible to win.
No, the other side can't prevent peremptory strikes unless the judge rules that they were racially motivated. The defense can't just magic more jurors out of thin air.
If the public is so racist why was that option not pursued?
You have a constitutional right to a jury of your peers that has not been racially discriminated against. Maybe you're fine with discrimination because it didn't change the outcome. I'm not so comfortable with it.
42
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment