Calhoun v. United States
568 U.S. 1206 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Racially biased remarks by a prosecutor that invoke stereotypes to establish criminal intent are unconstitutional, but a defendant's challenge to such remarks may be forfeited by failing to make a timely objection at trial and failing to properly preserve legal arguments for appellate review.
Facts:
- Bongani Charles Calhoun, an African-American man, stood trial for participating in a federal drug conspiracy.
- The central issue at trial was whether Calhoun knew his friend and others were planning a drug transaction.
- Calhoun testified that he was not part of the plan, had no knowledge of it, and always carried a concealed firearm for which he was licensed.
- He stated that the night before the arrest, he saw his friend with a bag of money in their hotel room, which made him uncomfortable and want to leave.
- During cross-examination about this moment, the prosecutor asked Calhoun: “You’ve got African-Americans, you’ve got Hispanos, you’ve got a bag full of money. Does that tell you—a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head and say, This is a drug deal?”
Procedural Posture:
- Bongani Charles Calhoun was tried by a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- During cross-examination, the prosecutor made a racially charged remark, to which Calhoun's defense counsel did not object.
- The jury found Calhoun guilty of the drug conspiracy charge.
- Calhoun (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the prosecutor's remark.
- The Fifth Circuit, reviewing the un-objected-to remark for plain error, affirmed the conviction.
- Calhoun (petitioner) then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's question that explicitly uses racial stereotypes to imply a defendant's criminal intent violate that defendant's constitutional rights to due process and an impartial jury?
Opinions:
Statement Respecting Denial of Certiorari - Justice Sotomayor
Yes, a prosecutor's question that relies on racial stereotypes to prove criminal intent is a clear violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. The statement clarifies that the Court's denial of certiorari should not be seen as tolerance for the prosecutor's racially charged remark. Citing precedent like McCleskey v. Kemp, the opinion asserts that the Constitution prohibits racially biased prosecutorial arguments as they violate equal protection and the right to an impartial jury. The prosecutor's conduct was described as tapping into a 'deep and sorry vein of racial prejudice' and substituting stereotype for evidence. However, the petition was denied on procedural grounds: Calhoun's counsel failed to object at trial, subjecting the appeal to the high bar of plain-error review, and then forfeited key arguments by failing to raise them before the court of appeals.
Analysis:
This statement, while not a binding precedent, serves as a powerful judicial condemnation of prosecutorial misconduct rooted in racial stereotyping. It signals to lower courts and prosecutors that such conduct is unconstitutional and will be scrutinized, even if procedural hurdles prevent reversal in a specific instance. The opinion highlights the critical tension between correcting a substantive constitutional violation and adhering to procedural rules like forfeiture and the plain-error standard. It acts as a stern warning that future, properly preserved cases involving similar misconduct might receive a different reception from the Court.
Unlock the full brief for Calhoun v. United States