Nowhere is the practice of equality as important as in the United
             States court of law. Indeed, constitutional principles should be upheld in
             order to maintain public trust in the criminal justice system. The most
             prominent demonstration of constitutional actions then begins with jury
             selection. Certain principles govern the selection of both petit and grand
             juries, especially in cases where representatives of minority groups are
             concerned. The policy of discrimination against these groups has socially
             and legally been abolished. Yet in many cases it is still evident that
             such policies are upheld. The cases of Batson v. Kentucky (1986) and
             Castaneda v. Partida (1977) are considered as examples of discriminatory
             practices relating to jury selection.
             This 1986 case concerns Batson, a black man charged with second-
             degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. At the jury selection phase
             the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude all four of the black
             persons on the jury venire. The petit jury selected was thus composed only
             of white persons. Of course defense counsel moved to remove the jury on
             the grounds that the defendant's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth
             Amendments, determining that all persons charged with crimes have the right
             to a jury trial where the jury is a cross section of society, and where the
             defendant has the right to equal protection.
             Clearly none of these principles are adhered to in the selection of
             the petit jury of this case. However, the interpretation of these
             Amendments allowed the judge to deny defense counsel's motion to dismiss
             the jury on the grounds of such violation. Indeed, the judge held that the
             cross section law applies only the venire, and not to the final selected
             jury. Furthermore the judge held that the prosecutor acted within his
             rights, as peremptory challenges can be used to remove any jury member for
             ...