STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER/CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOSEPH ALDRET, RESPONDENT/CROSS-PETITIONER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court answered two certified questions regarding peremptory challenges in criminal trials: whether the sole remedy for racially biased peremptory challenges is dismissing the jury pool, and whether the State may object to a defendant's discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. The Court held that trial judges have discretion to fashion remedies and that the State has standing to challenge discriminatory peremptory challenges under both the U.S. Constitution and Florida Constitution.
First, the trial judge has discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy based on the particular facts, which may include seating an improperly challenged juror as long as neither party's constitutional rights are infringed. Second, the State has standing to challenge a defendant's discriminatory use of peremptory challenges under both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 16 of the Florida Constitution.
[1] A trial court has discretion to deny a peremptory challenge found to be based on racial bias, if such denial cures the discriminatory taint without infringing on either p…
[2] The state has third-party standing to challenge a criminal defendant's discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is within the trial judge's discretion to fashion the appropriate remedy under the particular facts of each case and, as long as neither party's constitutional rights are infringed, that remedy may include the seating of an improperly challenged juror”
Establishes the trial court's discretion in crafting remedies for racially biased peremptory challenges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn the underlying case, Aldret v. State, a trial court found that a peremptory challenge was based on racial bias. The district court certified two qu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cross-Section Of The Community cases and more on FLexlaw
KOGAN, Justice.
We have for review Aldret v. State, 592 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which the district court certified the following questions as being of great public importance:1
WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FINDS THAT A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE IS BASED UPON RACIAL BIAS, IS THE SOLE REMEDY TO DISMISS THE JURY POOL AND TO START VOIR DIRE OVER WITH A NEW JURY POOL, OR MAY THE TRIAL COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE IF IT CURES THE DISCRIMINATORY TAINT?
MAY THE STATE OBJECT TO THE DEFENDANT’S USE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES IN AN ALLEGEDLY DISCRIMINATORY MANNER, AND IF SO, ON WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS?
592 So. 2d at 268.
We recently answered the fii’st question certified in Jefferson v. State, 595 So. 2d 38, 41 (Fla.1992),
by holding that it is within the trial judge’s discretion to fashion the appropriate remedy under the particular facts of each case and, as long as neither party’s constitutional rights are infringed, that remedy may include the seating of an improperly challenged juror. The second certified question has been answered by the United States Supreme Court in Georgia v. McCollum, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992), wherein the Court held that the state has third-party standing to challenge a criminal defendant’s discriminatory use of peremptory challenges and to assert the excluded jurors’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although the issue was not squarely before us, this Court too has specifically addressed this question. In State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481, 487 (Fla.1984), clarified, State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1986), clarified, State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988), limited by, Jefferson v. State, 595 So. 2d 38 (Fla.1992), we stated:
[People u] Thompson, [79 A.D.2d 87, 435 N.Y.S.2d 739 (1981)] speaks only of challenges exercised by the prosecution. [People v.] Wheeler, [22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P. 2d 748 (Cal.1978)] and [Commonwealth v.~\ Soares, [377 Mass. 461, 387 N.E. 2d 499 (Mass.1979) ], on the other hand, recognize that the ability to challenge the use of perempto-ries should be given to the prosecution as well as to the defense. We agree with Wheeler and Soares on this point and hold that both the state and the defense may challenge the allegedly improper use of peremptories. The state, no less than a defendant, is entitled to an impartial jury.
(Emphasis added; footnote omitted.) The Neil decision was “unmistakably based” on the guarantee of a trial by an impartial jury drawn from a cross section of the community contained in article I, section 16 of the Florida Constitution. Kibler v. State, 546 So. 2d 710, 712 (Fla.1989). In Neil, article I, section 16 was construed to entitle both the defendant and the State to “the assurance that peremptory challenges will not be exercised so as to exclude members of discrete racial groups solely by virtue of their affiliation.” Kibler, 546 So. 2d at 713. Cf. Wheeler, 583 P. 2d at 765 n. 29 (“the People no less than individual defendants are entitled to a trial by an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community”).
Thus, in answer to the second question certified, we hold that the State has standing to object to a defendant’s discriminatory use of peremptory challenges under both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 16 of the Florida Constitution.
Accordingly, we quash the decision under review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lebron v. State, 799 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2001)…isclose, during voir dire, that she had two close relatives who had been convicted of crimes was not material, and thus no new trial was required). The State, as well as the defendant, is entitled to an impartial jury. See generally State v. Aldret, 606 So. 2d 1156, 1157-58 (Fla.1992);14 cf. Peteet v. State, 631 S.W. 2d 816, [*1015] 817(Tex.App.1982) (holding, inter alia, that, pursuant to the applicable rule of criminal procedure [which provided that a challenge for cause could be made alleging some fact whic…
-
Edgardo Luis Rivera v. State, 670 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…as ethnicity, State v. Alen, 616 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1993). This prohibition applies equally to peremptory challenges exercised by the state or the defendant. See Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992); State v. Aldret, 606 So. 2d 1156 (Fla.1992). Potential jurors, as well as litigants, have an equal protection right to jury selection procedures free from stereotypical presumptions that reflect and reinforce patterns of historical discrimination. J.E.B., — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at…
-
Ratliff v. State, 666 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…liminate all question of discrimination, it must conduct an inquiry.” Valentine v. State, 616 So. 2d 971, 974 (Fla.1993). In Florida courts, defense counsel as well as prosecutors may be called upon to justify peremptory challenges, State v. Aldret, 606 So. 2d 1156 (Fla.1992), and the issue may also arise in civil eases. Hall v. Daee, 602 So. 2d 512 (Fla.1992). Reviewing courts “must rely on the superior vantage point of the trial judge, who is present, can consider the demeanor of those involved, and can get…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988)
- Men's Int'l Prof'l Tennis Council v. Volvo N. Am. Corp., 487 U.S. 1219 (U.S. 1988)
- Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc. v. Wis. Dep't of Natural Res., 487 U.S. 1219 (U.S. 1988)
- State v. Castillo, 486 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1986)
- Georgia v. McCOLLUM, 505 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1992)
- Kibler v. State, 546 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1989)
- Jefferson v. State, 595 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1992)
- Aldret v. State, 592 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)