Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a Certificate of Appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a habeas petitioner need only make a 'substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.' This standard is met by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could debate the district court's resolution of the constitutional claims or that the issues are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
Facts:
- Thomas Joe Miller-El, his wife, and another man robbed a Holiday Inn in Dallas, Texas.
- During the robbery, two hotel employees, Doug Walker and Donald Hall, were bound, gagged, and ordered to lie on the floor.
- Miller-El shot Walker twice in the back, killing him, and shot Hall in the side.
- At Miller-El's 1986 capital murder trial, Dallas County prosecutors used peremptory strikes to exclude 10 of the 11 eligible African-American prospective jurors.
- Prosecutors employed disparate questioning techniques, giving 53% of African-American venire members a graphic description of the execution process compared to only 6% of white venire members.
- Prosecutors also questioned 94% of white venire members about the minimum sentence for murder after informing them what it was, but did so for only 12.5% of African-American venire members.
- The prosecution requested jury shuffles when a predominant number of African-Americans were seated at the front of the jury panel.
- Historical evidence revealed a past formal policy within the Dallas County District Attorney's Office to exclude minorities from juries, including a 1968 manual that was still in circulation.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Joe Miller-El was tried for capital murder in Texas state court.
- At trial, Miller-El moved to strike the jury, arguing the prosecution used peremptory strikes to discriminate against African-Americans, but the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Miller-El and sentenced him to death in 1986.
- On direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case for a hearing under the newly decided Batson v. Kentucky.
- After the hearing, the state trial court found no purposeful discrimination.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- After being denied relief in state habeas proceedings, Miller-El filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
- The District Court denied the habeas petition and also denied a Certificate of Appealability (COA).
- Miller-El then sought a COA from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which also denied the application.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit's denial of the COA.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a habeas petitioner seeks a Certificate of Appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of a Batson claim, does a court of appeals apply an improperly high standard by merging the COA threshold inquiry with the ultimate merits determination under AEDPA, rather than simply asking whether reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claim debatable?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The court of appeals applied an improperly high standard by conflating the threshold inquiry for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) with the ultimate standard for granting habeas relief. The correct standard for a COA is not a decision on the merits, but a threshold determination of whether the petitioner has made a 'substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.' This is achieved by showing that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution of the claims. The Court of Appeals erred by deciding the merits and requiring Miller-El to prove the state court's decision was unreasonable by clear and convincing evidence at the COA stage. Given the substantial evidence of discrimination—including strike statistics, disparate questioning, jury shuffling, and historical bias—Miller-El's Batson claim is clearly debatable among jurists of reason, and a COA should have been issued.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. The denial of the Certificate of Appealability (COA) was correct because the petitioner cannot meet his statutory burden. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), a state court's factual findings, including the finding of no purposeful discrimination under Batson, are presumed correct unless rebutted by 'clear and convincing evidence.' The majority incorrectly separates this standard from the COA inquiry. To determine if a claim is 'debatable,' a court must consider the standard of proof the petitioner must ultimately meet. Since Miller-El has not presented anything close to clear and convincing evidence to overcome the state court's factual finding, no reasonable jurist could debate that he is entitled to relief, and therefore the COA was properly denied.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. The Court's COA standard is correct, though the case is a close one. While a court deciding on a COA may consider whether AEDPA's substantive provisions would bar relief, the primary question is whether the petitioner has made a substantial showing of a constitutional violation. This means the court asks if jurists of reason could debate the district court's resolution. In this case, while the State proffered race-neutral explanations for its strikes, the cumulative weight of petitioner's evidence—particularly the disparate questioning and jury shuffling—is sufficient to make the issue of pretext debatable, even under AEDPA's deferential standards. Therefore, granting the COA is appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the crucial distinction between the jurisdictional threshold for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) and the substantive review on the merits of a habeas corpus petition. By reaffirming the 'debatability among jurists of reason' standard from Slack v. McDaniel, the Court prevents federal appellate courts from short-circuiting appeals by applying the stringent AEDPA merits standards at the preliminary COA stage. This ensures that habeas petitioners with colorable constitutional claims, particularly in complex fact-intensive cases like Batson challenges, receive a full and fair opportunity for appellate review. The ruling reinforces the COA's role as a gatekeeper to screen out frivolous appeals, not as a barrier to debatable ones.
Unlock the full brief for Miller-El v. Cockrell