Case: Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991) [App.

132]

Facts: The plaintiff Edmonson was injured when he was pinned by a truck of the
defendant Leesville Concrete Co. The plaintiff sued for negligence, and the
defendant used two of its three preemptory challenges to remove black jurors. The
plaintiff is black and requested a race-neutral explanation for the defendant’s
challenges. Court refused b/c this only applies in criminal cases. Pl appealed.

Issue: Whether a private litigant in a civil case may use peremptory challenges
to exclude jurors on account of their race

Holding: Reversed and remanded.

Reasoning: Race based exclusion violates the equal protection rights of

challenged jurors.
○ First court talks about how it would violate the Constitution when a
government agency discriminates on race - so that this wouldn’t have been
permissible if it were a criminal trial.
○ He then uses a 2-part test to see if this applies to civil cases (where
it’s a private litigant):
§ Whether the constitutional deprivation, in this case the right to a
fair and impartial jury, resulted from a right derived in state authority. - Says
yes b/c the peremptory challenge (and law allows this) created the discrimination
§ whether the private party, Leesville and its counsel, was acting as
a "state actor." To decide this, he looks at 3 issues:
□ Whether actor relies on govt assistance - yes
□ Whether actor is performing a traditional govt function - yes
□ Whether the injury caused was aggravated in a unique way by the
incidents of govt authority - yes
® racial discrimination inside the courtroom diminishes the
integrity of the courts and "compounds the racial insult" of discrimination
○ Then he talked bout whether litigants could raise violations of jurors'
rights on their behalf
§ Rule of law: litigants generally cannot make a claim due to
violations of others' rights, except where the litigant has suffered an injury the
courts can resolve, has a close relation with the third party, and the third party
is hindered in protecting his or her own interests.
□ He says these factors are met.
○ He concluded that a private litigant in a civil case may not use
peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race.
§ the purpose of peremptory challenges is to assist the government in
selecting an impartial trier of fact,
§ the private party could not exercise its peremptory challenges
without overt, significant assistance of the court, and
§ the choosing of the jury is a traditional function of government. The
court argued that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors casts doubt on
the integrity of the judicial process.

Dissent: Says peremptory challenge by a private litigant is a matter of private

choice & within litigant's discretion, not state action.
○ Court is nt involved - the problem wasn't in establishing reqs for jury
selection. Actions in courtroom not necessarily actions of the govt just b/c they
are local in a govt building.
○ Also points out that the decision will not necessarily help create more
diverse juries. Instead system will become more complex.

RULE: Race based exclusion violates the equal protection rights of challenged
jurors in criminal as well as private litigation.
Notes and Problems [App. 136]
○ 3 years later, court extended this principle to include strikes based on
gender, but only in criminal, not civil cases.
○ Should peremptory challenges be abolished? Litigants make decision on very
little info, most of it is on stereotype.
§ If you did this, you may also want to broaden the scope of challenges
for cause.
§ This may work better.
○ Maybe better to just permit peremptory but you should be clear on what
bases it would be allowed. Not just on a whim, etc.