Does losing peremptory challenges after a Batson violation require reversal? State v. Sessions Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Sessions addresses a critical question facing criminal defense attorneys: what happens when peremptory challenges are lost due to a Batson violation, and does that loss automatically warrant reversal?

Background and Facts

Sessions was charged with aggravated sexual assault and domestic violence after attacking his wife in front of their four-year-old daughter. During jury selection, defense counsel used all five peremptory challenges to strike women from the jury. When the prosecution raised a Batson objection, counsel could provide gender-neutral explanations for three strikes but failed to articulate legitimate reasons for striking two female jurors. The trial court found a violation and reinstated the two jurors but did not restore Sessions’s lost peremptory challenges. Sessions was ultimately convicted on all counts.

Key Legal Issues

Sessions raised two primary arguments on appeal: first, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to provide adequate justifications for the challenged strikes, and second, that the trial court committed plain error by reinstating the jurors without restoring his peremptory challenges.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court applied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance claims and rejected Sessions’s argument for a presumption of prejudice. The court distinguished between the loss of peremptory challenges due to court error versus the remedial loss following a Batson violation. Critically, the court held that actual juror bias must be proven to establish prejudice—Sessions could not demonstrate that either reinstated juror was actually biased despite their responses during voir dire. The court also found no plain error in the trial court’s remedy, noting that courts have discretion in fashioning appropriate relief for Batson violations.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of preparation during jury selection. Defense attorneys must be ready to articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for every peremptory challenge. The court’s rejection of a presumption of prejudice means that losing challenges due to Batson violations will not automatically result in reversal—practitioners must prove actual bias to succeed on appeal.