The US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Terry Pitchford, a Black man convicted of capital murder and on death row in Mississippi, who claimed that his conviction was tainted by racial bias in jury selection. The justices sided with Pitchford in a 5-4 decision.
Background of the Case
Pitchford, now 40, was just 18 years old when he and another teenager robbed a grocery store in 2004. The other teen, who fired the fatal shots, was still a minor and therefore ineligible for the death penalty. However, Pitchford was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
Jury Selection Controversy
The crux of the Supreme Court ruling focused on jury selection during Pitchford's trial. State prosecutors removed four out of five Black jurors, leaving a jury composed of 11 white jurors and one Black juror. That jury later convicted Pitchford and sentenced him to death. The now-retired prosecutor Doug Evans, who the Associated Press noted had a history of dismissing Black jurors for discriminatory reasons, excused the four Black jurors. Pitchford's attorney objected to the strikes during the trial, but Judge Joseph Loper allowed them.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated: “The trial court did not afford Pitchford’s counsel a sufficient opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral reasons for striking the four Black jurors and never determined whether the prosecutor’s stated reasons were pretextual.”
Legal Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision revives a federal judge’s ruling that invalidated Pitchford’s conviction on the grounds that his lawyer was not allowed to pursue a line of questioning suggesting that Evans’s jury selection was based on race. During oral arguments in March, several justices appeared skeptical of whether Loper had sufficiently applied a Batson challenge—a reference to the 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky, which reaffirmed that it is unconstitutional to keep Black people off juries due to their race.
A Batson challenge triggers a three-step process: first, the objecting party must show an inference of discrimination; second, the striking party must provide race-neutral explanations; and third, the judge determines whether purposeful discrimination occurred. Much of the oral arguments focused on Loper’s actions in the third step.
Previous Similar Case
Seven years ago, in a case involving the same judge and prosecutor, the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence and conviction of Curtis Flowers, another Black man who had been tried six times over more than 20 years. At that time, the Court had seven of the nine current justices. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that Evans showed a “relentless, determined effort to rid the jury of Black individuals.”
Prosecutors may now seek to try Pitchford again, but the ruling marks a significant victory for those challenging racial bias in jury selection.
