English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In Batson v Kentucky,1 the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor violates the Equal Protection Clause when he challenges potential jurors on account of their race. In Georgia v McCollum,2 the Court extended its prohibition on race-based peremptory challenges to defense attorneys. Basing his appeal on these cases, Arthur S. Huey, IV sought a new trial by claiming that his own defense attorney had violated McCollum. His request for a new trial was granted.3 However, when Eric Boyd made the same argument, his request for a new trial was denied.4 The different outcomes of these two cases reflect a disagreement between the Fifth and Seventh Circuits about whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial when her own attorney has exercised race-based peremptory challenges. Initially, the Fifth Circuit held that a court must grant a new trial to a defendant whose attorney exercised unconstitutional peremptories.5 However, in Mata v Johnson, 6 it recharacterized its decision, holding that a court must "choose that course of action that [it] believe[s] will do the least damage to the system and to the peoples' perception of it." The Seventh Circuit, also professing a concern for the

Fulfilling the Promise of Batson: Protecting Jurors from the Use of Race-Based Peremptory Challenges by Defense Counsel