What can the defendant argue if the State uses all twelve peremptory strikes against male jurors?

When a defendant observes that the State has exercised all of its peremptory strikes against male jurors, the most relevant argument pertains to potential gender discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court has established that peremptory challenges cannot be used to discriminate based on gender, as doing so would violate the Equal Protection Clause. If the State has systematically excluded all male jurors, this pattern of behavior could feasibly indicate that the strikes were motivated by gender bias.

The concept of peremptory challenges allows both parties to exclude certain jurors without providing a reason, but this power must not be wielded in a discriminatory manner concerning protected classifications, such as gender. Thus, if the defendant can show that the strikes were predominantly against male jurors and potentially indicate a discriminatory intent, this could form the basis for a challenge against the jury selection process.

In contrast, arguments about racial balance, socioeconomic status, or professional bias do not directly relate to the issue of gender and thus do not support a claim of discrimination relevant to the observed exclusion of male jurors. The legal principles governing jury selection are centered more explicitly around the protection against discrimination based on race and gender, making the argument of gender discrimination the most viable in this scenario.