From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Pichay

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 26, 1993
986 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1993)

Summary

holding that young adults do not constitute a cognizable group for purposes of an equal protect ion challenge to the composition of a petit jury

Summary of this case from Murray v. Schriro

Opinion

No. 91-10571.

December 14, 1992.

Decided February 26, 1993.

Rustam A. Barbee, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, HI, for defendant-appellant.

Thomas Muehleck, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

Before: WILLIAM A. NORRIS, BEEZER, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.


Appellant argues that the prosecutor violated his right to equal protection, as secured under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), by using its peremptory challenges to systematically strike young persons from the jury solely on account of their age.

Neither the Supreme Court nor any circuit has held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from striking venirepersons on account of youth. Accordingly, we now join the First Circuit and the Seventh Circuit in holding that young adults do not constitute a cognizable group for purposes of an equal protection challenge to the composition of a petit jury. See United States v. Cresta, 825 F.2d 538, 545 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1042, 108 S.Ct. 2033, 100 L.Ed.2d 618 (1988); United States v. Jackson, 983 F.2d 757, 762-63 (7th Cir. 1993).

In an unpublished memorandum filed contemporaneously with this opinion, we AFFIRM appellant's convictions for murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Pichay

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 26, 1993
986 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1993)

holding that young adults do not constitute a cognizable group for purposes of an equal protect ion challenge to the composition of a petit jury

Summary of this case from Murray v. Schriro

providing that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit a party from striking potential jurors on account of age

Summary of this case from Kelley v. State
Case details for

U.S. v. Pichay

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WENDELL PICHAY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 26, 1993

Citations

986 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1993)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Helmstetter

(peremptory strike based on youth of juror permissible race-neutral justification); Pemberthy v. Beyer, 19…

State v. Taylor

Age (including "youth," as the defendant argues) has been rejected by federal courts as a classification…