United States v. Mencias, 83 M.J. ___ (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2023)
The military judge erred by "den[ying] Appellant’s Batson challenge where the Government used its peremptory challenge on the only self-identified homosexual member."
While the Supreme Court has never directly addressed sexual orientation within the context of peremptory challenges, it has held sexual orientation and gender are treated the same for purposes of employment discrimination.
Appellant's issue (1) [that]the convening authority’s selection of members who volunteered for such service prejudiced the Appellant’s right to a fair and impartial jury[.] became moot. Check out United States v. Dowty, 60 M.J. 161 (C.A.A.F. 2004), a case on volunteers.
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Army Crim. L. Deskbook