Juries

SCT Requires Unanimous Verdicts in Criminal Trials: Ramos v. Louisiana

In a 6-3 decision, the US SCT in Ramos v. Louisiana found non-unanimous jury verdicts involving serious crimes to be unconstitutional.  While this case really only impacts Oregon and Louisiana (in 2018 Louisiana amended its state constitution to prohibit non-unanimous jury verdicts, however, the change was not made retroactive), it is nonetheless a very important decision that overrules or expands past precedent (Apodaca v. Oregon).  While the 1972 Apodaca decision prohibited non-unanimous jury verdicts, the ruling was limited to federal courts.  Ramos expands Apodaca to cover the states. 

One of the main reasons for the opinion in Ramos, at least according to the SCT, was that non-unanimous verdicts were put in place because of racist beliefs.  According to Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in Ramos, non-unanimous verdicts were used “to ensure that African-American juror service would be meaningless.”

To hear the oral argument go here.  To read the opinion go here.  Links to commentary on the decision are below.

NYTimes.com: Supreme Court Bans Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts for Serious Crimes

Independent.co.uk: The Supreme Court just voted down a racist law — but put abortion rights at risk in doing so

Reason.com: 5 Unanswered Questions from Ramos v. Louisiana

Slate.com: Everyone Is Mad at Elena Kagan

 

Gay Bias and Jurors

Here is an article in the Jurist discussing the discrimination gay people face in the criminal justice system.  The article primarily examines the harm that arises with jurors who have a gay bias.  The article advocates for the SCT to take up the case of Charles Rhines v. Darin Young.  The petitioner, Charles Rhines, claims that the South Dakota jury that sentenced him to death harbored an anti-gay bias. 

As a general rule, courts don't like to interject themselves into the jury deliberation process.  However, in 2016, the SCT in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado overturned a defendant's conviction because members of his jury harbored racial biases against Latinos.  If the SCT were to take up this case and side with the petitioner, it would most likely be viewed as an extension of Pena-Rodriguez to sexual orientation.

Jurist.org: Anti-Gay Bias Has No Place in Our Juries

 

Mississippi v. Flowers Transcript

Here is the transcript of yesterday's oral argument in Mississippi v. Flowers.

 

SCT to Hear Oral Argument in Mississippi vs. Flowers

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Mississippi v. Flowers. The issue before the court is whether the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in its application of Batson v. Kentucky.  For more background on the case, go here.  I will post transcripts as soon as they are ready.

SCT to Hear Another Jury Case

The Supreme Court has granted cert in Flowers v. Mississippi.  The specific issue to be briefed by the parties is

did the Mississippi Supreme Court properly apply Batson v. Kentucky?

This case, which has already been to the Supreme Court once before, was recently featured in the podcast In the Dark.

Here is the write up in SCOTUSBlog

In Flowers v. Mississippi, the justices will once again review the case of Curtis Flowers, who was sentenced to death for an infamous quadruple murder at a furniture store in Winona, Mississippi. Flowers was tried six times. During the first four trials, prosecutor Doug Evans was twice found to have violated the constitutional ban on racial discrimination in selecting jurors: He had struck all 10 of the potential African-American jurors, while he used all of his strikes to remove African Americans from the jury pool in the third and fourth trials. Flowers’ fifth trial deadlocked, but at his sixth trial, Evans allowed the first African-American juror to be seated but then struck the remaining five African-American jurors.

The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected Flowers’ challenge to Evans’ jury selection, but the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the state supreme court to reconsider that ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Foster v. Chatman, in which the court held that the defendant in a capital case had shown intentional discrimination in the selection of jurors. When the case went back to the Mississippi Supreme Court, that court again upheld the ruling for the state, reasoning that Evans’ past discrimination did not affect its analysis. Flowers then returned to the justices, asking them to weigh in on whether the Mississippi Supreme Court was correct.

Here is a local article about the case.

Racist Juror Leads SCT to Grant Reprieve to Death Row Inmate

In a 6-3 unsigned decision, the SCT in Keith Tharpe v. Eric Sellers remanded Tharpe's case back to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals so that it could reconsider whether he was eligible for a Certificate of Appealability. The SCT based its decision on racist comments made by one white juror, Barney Gattie, who had convicted Tharpe in 1991 for kidnapping and raping his estranged wife and killing her sister, Jaquelin Freeman. 

In a sworn affidavit post-trial, Gattie made several racist comments about African-Americans to include:

“The Freemans are what I would call a nice Black family...In my experience I have observed that there are two types of black people. 1. Black folks and 2. N******.”

“Because I knew the victim and her husband’s family and knew them all to be good black folks, I felt Tharpe, who wasn’t in the ‘good’ black folks category in my book, should get the electric chair for what he did,” 

“After studying the Bible...I have wondered if black people even have souls.”

According to the SCT,"Gattie's remarkable affidavit — which he never retracted — presents a strong factual basis for the argument that Tharpe's race affected Gattie's vote for a death verdict." 

Despite the favorable SCT ruling, Tharpe still has an uphill battle to get his conviction overturned.  He is only at the Certificate of Appealability stage.

To read a NY Times article about this case go here.

 

 

Racist Juror Leads to Temporary Halt in Execution

The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the execution of an African-American Georgia death row inmate while the high court decides whether to grant certiorari in his case.  The defendant alleges that at least one of the jurors who decided his fate had virulent racial views.  For example, the juror allegedly stated that "[a]fter studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls.”

To read more about the case go here.

 

Closure of Courtroom During Jury Selection (Weaver v. Massachusetts)

Recently, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Weaver v. Massachusetts.  To listen to the oral argument go here.  The case involved sixteen-year-old Kentel Myrone Weaver who was convicted of killing 15-year-old Germaine Rucker in Boston.  Weaver admitted to shooting the other boy so there is no dispute about whether he committed the crime.  Instead, the issue in this case concerns jury selection.

During jury selection, the courtroom could barely fit all the potential jurors in the case so Weaver's family was asked to wait outside by the bailiff.  Apparently, the judge had not ordered a closed hearing, but the courtroom was at standing room only with ninety potential jurors, and the bailiff had been instructed to not let anyone else in.  The following day Weaver's family was once again denied entry.  Once the jury was selected, the family was allowed into the courtroom.  Weaver's attorney, who was experienced, failed to object because he thought closure of the courtroom was constitutional.  The jury ultimately found Weaver guilty.

Fast forward five years and Weaver appeals his conviction based in part on his lawyer’s failure to object to the closed courtroom during jury selection.  The case eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court where the issue is framed as follows:

Whether a defendant asserting ineffective assistance that results in a structural error must, in addition to demonstrating deficient performance, show that he was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness, as held by four circuits and five state courts of last resort; or whether prejudice is presumed in such cases, as held by four other circuits and two state high courts.

To read more about the case go here.

 

Oral Argument in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (Oyez)

Here is the Oral Argument in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado courtesy of Oyez.

SCT Says Judge Must Investigate Racial Comments by Jurors (Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado)

Here is a brief write-up of the Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado opinion from the SCOTUS Blog.

A Colorado man who was required to register as a sex offender after being convicted of unlawful sexual contact with two teenage girls will get a shot at a new trial, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled today. Miguel Peña-Rodriguez had asked a state trial court for a new trial after two jurors told his lawyers that a third juror had made racially biased remarks about Peña-Rodriguez and his main witness, who are both Hispanic. But the state trial court rejected Peña-Rodriguez’s request, citing a state evidentiary rule that generally bars jurors from testifying about statements made during deliberations that might call the verdict into question. In a major ruling on juror bias and fair trials, the Supreme Court reversed that holding by a vote of 5-3 and sent Peña-Rodriguez’s case back to the lower courts for them to consider the two jurors’ testimony for the first time.