Snyder v. Louisiana
128 S. Ct. 1203 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Batson v. Kentucky, a prosecutor's proffered race-neutral reason for a peremptory strike is deemed pretextual and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause when the justification is implausible and contradicted by a comparative analysis showing that similarly situated white jurors were not struck.
Facts:
- In August 1995, Allen Snyder was separated from his wife, Mary.
- On August 15, after discussing reconciliation, Mary went on a date with Howard Wilson.
- During the evening, Snyder repeatedly attempted to page Mary without success.
- At approximately 1:30 a.m. on August 16, as Wilson was dropping Mary off at her mother's home, Snyder ambushed their car.
- Snyder, armed with a knife, opened the car door and repeatedly stabbed both occupants, killing Wilson and wounding Mary.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged petitioner Allen Snyder with first-degree murder in state trial court.
- During jury selection, the prosecution used peremptory strikes to remove all five qualified Black prospective jurors.
- Snyder's defense counsel made a Batson objection, which the trial court denied.
- A jury convicted Snyder and sentenced him to death.
- Snyder, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which rejected the Batson claim and affirmed the conviction.
- Snyder petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded to the Louisiana Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Miller-El v. Dretke.
- On remand, the Louisiana Supreme Court again rejected Snyder's Batson claim.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for a second time to review the Louisiana 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 prosecutor's peremptory strike of a Black potential juror violate the Equal Protection Clause under Batson v. Kentucky when the proffered race-neutral reasons are highly speculative and contradicted by the prosecutor's acceptance of white jurors with similar or more significant conflicting obligations?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
Yes, the prosecutor's peremptory strike of the Black potential juror violates the Equal Protection Clause. The court found clear error in the trial court's acceptance of the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for striking juror Jeffrey Brooks, a Black man. The prosecutor offered two reasons: Brooks's alleged nervousness and his student-teaching obligations. The Court dismissed the 'nervousness' claim because the trial judge made no explicit finding on demeanor, thus warranting no special deference. The Court found the second reason—that Brooks's student-teaching might cause him to rush to a verdict to avoid a penalty phase—to be pretextual and implausible. This pretext was revealed by a comparative juror analysis, which showed that the prosecutor accepted at least two white jurors (Laws and Donnes) who had substantially more pressing work and family obligations that would have provided a stronger motive to hasten the trial. This inconsistent application of the proffered logic gave rise to a strong inference of discriminatory intent, rendering the strike unconstitutional under Batson.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No, the prosecutor's peremptory strike of the juror did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The majority failed to apply the proper deferential standard to the trial court's factual findings, which should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. The evaluation of a prosecutor's motive is a credibility judgment that lies 'peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.' The trial court was in the best position to observe the demeanor of both the prosecutor and the juror. The majority improperly second-guesses the trial court's ruling simply because the judge did not make specific findings on the record for each of the prosecutor's reasons. Furthermore, the comparative juror analysis involving jurors Laws and Donnes is improper because petitioner failed to raise this comparison in the lower courts, and an appellate court should not overturn a conviction based on arguments not presented below.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the enforcement of the Batson rule by emphasizing that appellate courts will conduct a rigorous review of a prosecutor's proffered race-neutral reasons. It establishes that a reason's implausibility, especially when revealed through a comparative analysis of accepted and struck jurors, can be sufficient grounds to infer discriminatory intent. The ruling limits the deference typically granted to trial courts on demeanor-based strikes when the trial judge makes no specific on-the-record finding about that demeanor. This case serves as a critical precedent for holding prosecutors accountable for pretextual strikes and makes it more difficult to shield discriminatory jury selection practices from meaningful appellate review.
