Clark v. Mississippi (Denial of Cert.)
600 U. S. ____ (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When evaluating a Batson challenge alleging racial discrimination in jury selection, a court must conduct a sensitive, context-specific inquiry that considers the totality of all relevant circumstances, including statistical disparities in strikes, disparate investigation of jurors, and pretextual reasons offered by the prosecution.
Facts:
- Tony Terrell Clark, a Black man, was tried for a capital offense in Mississippi.
- During jury selection, the prosecution used its peremptory strikes to remove seven of the eight remaining Black prospective jurors (87.5%).
- The prosecution conducted previously undisclosed database investigations into two Black prospective jurors, Kathy Luckett and Alicia Esco-Johnson, searching for relatives with criminal records based only on their shared last names.
- The prosecution did not conduct similar background investigations into any white prospective jurors.
- The prosecution accepted white jurors who admitted to having close family members with criminal histories, including one whose stepson was incarcerated.
- The prosecution stated it was striking any juror who 'equivocates' on the death penalty.
- The prosecution struck Black prospective juror Kathy Luckett, who gave the second-most pro-death penalty answer on her questionnaire.
- The prosecution accepted multiple white jurors who gave anti-death penalty or neutral answers and expressed significant hesitation about its application.
Procedural Posture:
- Tony Terrell Clark was tried in a Mississippi trial court for a capital crime.
- During jury selection, the defense raised two Batson challenges to the prosecution's peremptory strikes of Black jurors.
- The trial court found a prima facie showing of discrimination but ultimately accepted the prosecution's race-neutral explanations and denied the Batson motions.
- The jury convicted Clark and sentenced him to death.
- Clark, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Mississippi Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- A divided Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting the Batson claim.
- Clark then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to review the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision.
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 state supreme court misapply the Batson framework when it affirms a trial court's denial of a racial discrimination claim in jury selection without addressing significant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, such as stark statistical disparities, disparate juror investigations, and pretextual reasons for strikes?
Opinions:
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes. A state supreme court misapplies the Batson framework by failing to conduct the required context-specific inquiry and ignoring significant evidence of discriminatory intent. The Mississippi Supreme Court's decision was a direct repudiation of this Court's precedent in Flowers v. Mississippi because it failed to address three key factors. First, the court ignored glaring statistical evidence showing the State was over five times more likely to strike a Black prospective juror than a white one. Second, the court failed to engage with evidence of disparate investigation, where the prosecution conducted special inquiries into Black jurors to find pretextual reasons for strikes while not investigating similarly situated white jurors. Third, the court failed to address the State's misrepresentations, particularly its pretextual claim of striking jurors who 'equivocated' on the death penalty while simultaneously accepting white jurors who expressed far greater reluctance. By refusing to vacate the judgment and remand, the Supreme Court acquiesces in the state court's noncompliance and renders its own precedent 'toothless.'
Analysis:
This dissent from the denial of certiorari signals a significant internal debate at the Supreme Court regarding its supervisory role over state courts' application of established constitutional precedent. It underscores the persistent challenges in eradicating racial discrimination from jury selection, as highlighted by the Mississippi Supreme Court's apparent disregard for the specific instructions laid out in the recent Flowers decision. While not a binding precedent, Justice Sotomayor's dissent serves as a powerful critique of the majority's inaction, arguing that failing to enforce its own rulings emboldens lower courts to defy them and undermines public confidence in the justice system. The dissent serves as a roadmap for future litigants in identifying and presenting evidence of pretext in Batson challenges.
Unlock the full brief for Clark v. Mississippi (Denial of Cert.)