nvicted the county, and a third indicated he was familiar with an officer involved in the case, no prima facie can be established (Phillips v. State 496 N.E.2d 87 [Ind. 1986]). In 1991 the Supreme Court expanded on their decision and extended the Batson ruling to civil cases also. Not all of the Justices were in favor of the ruling. Divided 6 to 3, the three dissenting justices said racial discrimination by private lawyers exercising their peremptory challenges is abhorrent but is not prohibited by the Constitution (The Wash. Post June, 1991). Fortunately that was the minority vote. Cases involving employment, licensing, and negligence deserve racial bias protection just as much as criminal cases. The three dissenting judges claim that the Constitution does not account for private discrimination, only state action is prohibited. Justice OConnors said, A trial, particularly a civil trial, is by design largely a stage on which private parties may act...The government erects the platform; it does not thereby become responsible for all that occurs on it. (The Wash. Post, June, 1991). Understandably people reserve the right to pursue and defend private legal matters but, the decisions are based on our law and our law is based on protecting us as citizens. We do not have a laisse-faire government and until we do society depends on the courts to see people are treated fairly. As Justice Kennedy states Few places are a more real expression of the constitutional authority of the government that a courtroom, where the law itself unfolds (The Wash. Post, June, 1991).Now that the Batson case has been applied to Criminal and Civil cases where else could racial bias erupt? In 1989 the California Supreme Court ruled 5 to 2 that the jury panel should be based racially on the population of the judicial district where the case is tried, a ruling that rejected a black defendant, accused of murdering a white victim, claiming he was entitled to ...
