''Rivera v. Illinois'', 556 U.S. 148 (2009), is a decision by the

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

involving whether the rejection of a defendant's

peremptory challenge In American and Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by ...

to a

juror A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartiality, impartial verdict (a Question of fact, finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a sentence (law), penalty o ...

constituted harmless error.

Background of the case

Michael Rivera was convicted of two counts of first degree murder in 1998. He was then sentenced to eighty-five years in prison. During the pre-trial ''voir dire'', Rivera's counsel used a

to have a juror removed from consideration. The judge deemed the challenge to be based on discriminatory factors and allowed the juror to be seated. Rivera appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing the peremptory challenge. The

Illinois Supreme Court The Supreme Court of Illinois is the state supreme court, the highest court of the State of Illinois. The court's authority is granted in Article VI of the current Illinois Constitution, which provides for seven justices elected from the five ap ...

remanded the case for the trial court to explain why the peremptory challenge in question was discriminatory. The trial judge submitted gender discrimination as the relevant discriminatory factor. Unsatisfied with this explanation, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Rivera was wrongly denied his challenge to dismiss the juror. The state supreme court found no evidence that Rivera's attorney used discriminatory considerations in arguing for the dismissal of the juror in question. Despite this, the state supreme court decided that such a mistake constituted a

harmless error In United States law, a harmless error is a ruling by a trial judge that, although mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal, or to warrant a new trial. Harmless error ...

U.S. Supreme Court ruling

James K. Leven argued the case for the petitioner. Michael A. Scodro argued the case for the respondent. Assistant to the Solicitor General Matthew D. Roberts argued the case for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the respondent. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Illinois Supreme Court decision in a unanimous opinion.

References

External links

*
Oral arguments transcript
{{Equal protection and criminal procedure, jury, state=expanded Batson challenge case law United States Sixth Amendment jury case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court 2009 in United States case law

Background of the case

U.S. Supreme Court ruling

See also

References

External links