October Term 2005 · Docket 04-52
Does the Batson challenge require a specific reason for striking a juror?
The dispute centers on whether a prosecutor must provide a specific reason for striking a juror during a Batson challenge.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
William Lockyer argued the Supreme Court must defer to state court fact-finding in habeas review.
He stated the Ninth Circuit did not simply apply the wrong standard of deference.
Drozdowski argued the Ninth Circuit correctly found the state court's fact determination unreasonable.
He claimed the prosecutor failed to provide a single persuasive reason for striking the juror.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-54 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-54
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the standard of review for state court fact-finding in habeas corpus proceedings. It focuses on the prosecutor's obligation to explain juror strikes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-33
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 5, 2005.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Supreme Court to affirm the state court's deference to the prosecutor's explanation.
the opposing sides want the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit's finding that the prosecutor's explanation was insufficient.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-33
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the Supreme Court must defer to state court fact-finding under federal habeas statutes.
the opposing sides argue the state court unreasonably determined facts because the prosecutor gave no persuasive reason for the strike.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-33
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the state fact-finder merely gave the benefit of the doubt to the prosecutor.
Justice Souter asked if the district attorney claimed youth alone did not explain the strike because other young jurors remained unchallenged.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-54 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-54
Why it matters
This case defines the minimum explanation a prosecutor must provide when striking a juror. It clarifies how federal courts review state court decisions in habeas proceedings. The outcome shapes the practical application of Batson challenges in criminal trials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-33
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-54 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-54 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-54
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-33
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.