State v. Holmes, 334 Conn. 202

Mullins, J., concurring in State v. Holmes, joins majority but urges broader reforms to peremptory challenges beyond Batson, including substantial reduction or elimination.
Notes historical use of peremptories to exclude African‑Americans (Swain) and that Batson has proven inadequate to stop discriminatory strikes.
Identifies four systemic problems: historical racial exclusion, reliance on speculation/stereotypes, implicit bias and race‑neutral voir dire with disparate impact, and violation of prospective jurors’ equal‑protection interests.
Highlights disparate‑impact examples (e.g., striking jurors for negative views of police) that disproportionately exclude minorities and undermine jury diversity and legitimacy.
Discusses Connecticut constitutional constraint: article first, §19 (amend. IV) grants parties a right to peremptory challenges but leaves the number to statute, suggesting scope to reduce numbers legislatively.
Proposes policy options including substantial reduction of peremptory strikes and potentially limiting the state’s peremptory allotment more than the defendant’s, while acknowledging unresolved constitutional questions.

Issue	State's Argument	Holmes' Argument	Held
Adequacy of Batson to prevent discriminatory peremptory strikes	Batson framework should govern and can address discrimination	Batson is inadequate to detect implicit bias and disparate‑impact race‑neutral reasons	Court and concurrence find Batson insufficient and endorse further measures (e.g., Task Force)
Whether peremptory challenges should be substantially reduced or abolished	Peremptories are a longstanding trial tool and should be preserved	Peremptories invite stereotyping and implicit bias; should be reduced or eliminated	Concurrence urges substantial reduction; full abolition not adopted due to constitutional concerns but reforms endorsed
Whether Connecticut constitution permits reducing the number of peremptory challenges	Constitutional amendment grants parties the right but legislature sets the number	Reduction is permissible because amendment does not guarantee a minimum number	Concurrence: constitutional text does not bar legislative reduction of peremptory numbers
Whether the State should have equal peremptory allotment as defendant	The constitutional language grants the State peremptory challenges equal to defendant	It may be appropriate to limit the State’s allotment more than the defendant’s to protect defendants	Left unresolved; concurrence suggests limiting the State more is worth considering but does not decide

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (establishes prohibition on race‑based peremptory strikes and Batson three‑step framework)
Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1965) (previously allowed pattern‑of‑prosecutions showing of racial exclusion; later overruled by Batson)
J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1994) (extends Batson protection to gender‑based peremptory challenges)
Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (criticizes Swain’s burdens and discusses disparate impact proof difficulties)
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2006) (addresses limits of appellate review of Batson findings; Justice Breyer concurrence advocates abolition of peremptories)
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1992) (holds there is no federal constitutional right to peremptory challenges)
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (recognizes prospective jurors’ equal‑protection interest in not being excluded by race)
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1991) (addresses race‑neutral explanations that may have disparate impact)
State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207 (Conn. 1999) (Connecticut precedent applying Batson principles)
State v. Holmes, 176 Conn. App. 156 (Conn. App. 2017) (Appellate Court decision in the underlying matter discussing disparate‑impact concerns)