Impartiality Requirement of the Sixth Amendment and Peremptory Challenges: Holland v. Illinois, The
Vandenack, Mary E.
INTRODUCTION|The United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to trial by an impartial jury. In Holland v. Illinois, the United States Supreme Court distinguished between the idea of a representative jury and that of an impartial jury. The Court held that the fair cross-section requirement of the sixth amendment does not extend from the venire stage to the voir dire stage of the criminal trial. The Court asserted that the peremptory challenge is an essential aspect of the guarantee of an impartial jury. The Court also asserted that the representative panel required at the venire stage may be disrupted at the voir dire stage to achieve the guarantee of impartiality.|The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Holland clarified to some extent the confusion caused in the lower courts by the 1986 decision of the Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky, in which the Court had held that the use of peremptory challenges to discriminate against members of a defendant's race may violate the fourteenth amendment mandate of equal protection. In Holland, the Court asserted that the Batson holding was not meant to imply . The sixth amendment states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...
24 Creighton L. Rev. 313 (1990-1991)
Creighton University School of Law