| Georgia v. McCollum | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 26, 1992 Decided June 18, 1992 | |
| Full case name | Georgia, Petitioner v. Thomas McCollum, William Joseph McCollum and Ella Hampton McCollum |
| Citations | 505U.S.42 (more) 112 S. Ct. 2348; 120L. Ed. 2d 33 |
| Holding | |
| The Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory challenges. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter |
| Concurrence | Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), was a case in which theSupreme Court of the United States held that a criminaldefendant cannot makeperemptory challenges based solely on race.[1] The court had previously held inBatson v. Kentucky (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but did not address whether defendants could use them.[2] The court had already ruled inEdmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991) that theBatson prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during thejury selection process.[3]
However, inPolk County v. Dodson,[4] the court had held that a public defender is not a state actor in the context of a lawsuit for inadequate legal representation. McCollum argued thatPolk County was the controlling precedent, so public defenders are not state actors during jury selection. Writing for the court, JusticeHarry Blackmun disagreed. Blackmun found that whether a public defender is a state actor "depends on the nature and context of the function he is performing."[5] Just as he is a state actor in the context of personnel decisions like hiring and firing attorneys in his office, a public defender is a state actor in the context of peremptory challenges. Like inEdmonson, Blackmun found that race-based peremptory challenges by the defendant violate theEqual Protection Clause and are therefore unconstitutional.