PORTLAND, Ore. — In a significant shift in courtroom policy, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt has announced plans to eliminate the use of peremptory challenges by prosecutors in misdemeanor trials. Citing concerns over racial and ethnic exclusion in jury selection, Schmidt expressed that this change aims to foster a more equitable legal process.
Peremptory challenges allow both prosecutors and defense attorneys to dismiss potential jurors without stating a cause, often used to remove jurors deemed as having implicit biases. Historically, this practice has been critiqued for allowing subjective dismissals that could contribute to racial imbalances on juries. Currently, Oregon law provides each side three peremptory challenges in misdemeanor cases and six in more severe felony cases.
Schmidt communicated these changes in a recent email to his staff, emphasizing that his office already views peremptory challenges unfavorably. The new policy will apply exclusively to cases where the highest charge is a misdemeanor, with domestic violence cases as the exception.
The decision comes after reflections on recent Oregon court rulings that highlighted potential abuses of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race. These include a 2019 case where the Oregon Court of Appeals found a judge wrongly upheld a prosecutor’s dismissal of the lone Black juror in a trial, and a 2022 ruling reversing a murder conviction because jurors were excluded on racial grounds.
Legal experts have noted that such policy changes, while fostering fairness, could potentially alter the dynamics of jury selection, possibly resulting in juries that might lean more favorably towards defense arguments if defense attorneys do not adopt a similar stance.
Tung Yin, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, suggests that while the exclusion of these challenges might slightly disadvantage the prosecution, the fairness gained might outweigh these concerns. Additionally, such measures could reduce suspicions around prosecutorial motives, particularly in crafting racially homogeneous juries.
Despite these proactive measures, the announcement has sparked controversy, particularly timing-wise, as DA-elect Nathan Vasquez, who will take office in January, noted that Schmidt did not consult him before implementing the policy. Vasquez expressed that all decisions, including this new policy, will be revisited when his administration takes over.
Schmidt plans to implement the no-peremptory-challenge policy starting August 1. Until then, the legal community and observers will likely watch closely to see if the change will prompt similar actions in other jurisdictions or how it might affect public trust in the criminal justice system.
Assistant DA Nate Vasquez’s critical response and the looming reassessment in January suggest that the debate over jury selection methods and their implications on justice and equity is far from over. As this policy unfolds, its actual impact on misdemeanor trials and its possible extension to felony cases will provide a new chapter in discussions on reforming prosecutorial practices.