BATSON CHALLENGE TO PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE BASED ON RACE OR GENDER
From MN Bench Book - Trial Procedures & Practices for Judges
OBJECTION TO THE EXERCISE OF A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE ALLEGING CHALLENGE WAS BASED ON RACE OR GENDER
THE RULE: ANY PARTY, OR THE COURT, MAY OBJECT TO THE EXERCISE OF A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE ON THE GROUND OF PURPOSEFUL RACIAL OR GENDER DISCRIMINATION AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE JURY IS SWORN TO TRY THE CASE 
1. The use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors is subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is prohibited by Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure.
2. An objection, claiming racial or gender discrimination, to a peremptory challenge may be made any time before the jury is sworn. 
3. If the District Court erroneously denies a defendant’s peremptory challenge, defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial. Although federal law does not require automatic reversal, the Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted a more restrictive rule mandating “automatic reversal. 
4. A peremptory challenge based on a prospective juror’s race or gender denies equal protection both to the prospective juror, who is denied the right to participate in jury service, and to the defendant, whose right to be tried by a jury made up of members selected by nondiscriminatory criteria is violated.
5. A three-step analysis determines whether a peremptory challenge discriminates based on gender.
i. The party objecting to a peremptory challenge must first make a prima facie case of gender discrimination.<re>Id.</ref> A prima facie case of gender discrimination is established by a showing that (1) one or more members of a gender classification have been peremptorily excluded from the jury and (2) circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on gender.  If no prima facie showing is found, the objection shall be overruled. The party asserting a Batson violation always bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of purposeful discrimination
ii. If a prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the party exercising the challenge to offer a gender-neutral explanation. This step of the Batson analysis requires the proponent of the peremptory challenge to articulate a gender-neutral reason for each strike. But the proponent of a challenged peremptory strike need not provide a “persuasive or even plausible” explanation for the strike. Unless discriminatory intent is inherent in the explanation, the reason offered is deemed neutral.
iii. The district court must then decide whether the objecting party proved that the explanation is a mere pretext for discrimination. If the court determines that a race-neutral or gender-neutral explanation has been articulated, the objecting party must prove that the proffered explanation is pretextual. If the objection was initially raised by the court, it shall determine, after such hearing as it deems appropriate, whether the peremptory challenge was exercised in a purposeful discriminatory manner on the basis of race or gender. If purposeful discrimination is proved the objection shall be sustained. If no purposeful discrimination is proved the objection shall be overruled. 
- Minn.R.Crim.P 26.02, Subd.7a
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 1719 (1986). Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, Subd 7,
- Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, Subd. 7(2).
- State v. Campbell, 772 N.W.2d 858 (Mn App. 2009)
- State v. Reiners, 664 N.W.2d 826, (Minn. 2003); see also J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 114 S. Ct. 1419 (1994) (extending Batson to prohibit gender discrimination in jury selection)
- State v. Greenleaf, 591 N.W.2d 488, 500 (Minn. 1999); see also Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 7(3)
- State v. Martin, 773 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn. 2009)
- State v. Greenleaf, 591 N.W.2d 488, 500 (Minn. 1999)
- Minn. R Crim. P.26.02 Subd. 7a(3) (c)