In a 7 to 1 decision, the United States Supreme Court declared that Georgia prosecutors denied a black man a fair trial in a criminal case.
Facts
During jury selection at Timothy Foster’s 1988 capital murder trial, Butts County prosecutors highlighted the name of each black prospective juror in green; the list also contained handwritten notes like “no black churches” and “if it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors, [this one] might be okay.” The prosecutors removed all four black people. During sentencing, according to the Wall Street Journal, the prosecutor implored the all-white jury to “deter other people out there in the projects.” Mr. Foster, who is black, filed an appeal, based on the 1988 case Batson v. Kentucky, which made it illegal for attorneys to strike potential jurors based solely on race.
A lower appeals court rejected Mr. Foster’s appeal, holding that the prosecutors had valid, race-neutral reasons for their strikes.
Decision
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the race-neutral reasons were merely pretexts to strike black jurors. Prosecutors claimed that they struck Marilyn Garrett at the last minute because a white juror was excused on the morning the trial began. But Chief Justice Roberts noted that Ms. Garrett had a handwritten “definite NO” by her name, which, he concluded, indicated that prosecutors intended to strike her from the outset. Prosecutors also offered that they struck Ms. Garrett because she was too young (34) and divorced, but three white divorced jurors and eight whites under 36 were on the jury.
Similar circumstances surrounded prospective black juror Eddie Hood. Prosecutors initially said they struck Mr. Hood because his son was the same age as the defendant; they later changed their story and said they struck Mr. Hood due to his Church of Christ membership. Such justifications would not have passed muster anyway because a white person with a son the defendant’s age was on the jury, and although other white Church of Christ members were excused, it was not because of the church’s stated opposition to the death penalty.
Altogether, the circumstantial evidence presented a “compelling” case that, when combined with “the prosecution’s shifting explanations, misrepresentations of the record, and persistent focus on race. . . tends to suggest purposeful discrimination.”
Takeaway
Foster v. Chapman is significant in that the Court looked to circumstantial evidence, as opposed to the traditional “smoking gun,” to establish racial discrimination. Even more interestingly, such evidence was available, in the form of the prosecutor’s racially-charged comments during sentencing, but the Court chose to focus on the circumstantial evidence instead.
While this case may not be the radical Batson expansion that some pundits have claimed it to be, it is definitely a defendant-friendly interpretation of the Batson standard, and three of the Court’s most conservative members welcomed this extension.
Reach Out to Experienced Attorneys
At Glasgow & Olsson, we know the law and know how to leverage it on behalf of our clients. Contact our Schaumburg office today for a confidential consultation, because the sooner you call, the sooner we can get started on your defense.
(photo courtesy of Xander Turner)