TIMOTHY TYRONE FOSTER, PETITIONER v. BRUCE CHATMAN, WARDEN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 136 S.CT….

TIMOTHY TYRONE FOSTER, PETITIONER v. BRUCE CHATMAN, WARDEN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 136 S.CT. 1737 (2016) Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Georgia. During jury selection, the prosecutors used their peremptory challenges to prevent all four prospective black jurors from serving on the jury. Foster raised a Batson challenge, arguing that prosecutors use of those strikes were racially motivated. The state habeas court denied relief and the Georgia Supreme Court denied Foster the Certificate of Probable Cause required to file an appeal. Fosters only
TIMOTHY TYRONE FOSTER, PETITIONER v. BRUCE CHATMAN, WARDEN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 136 S.CT. 1737 (2016) Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Georgia. During jury selection, the prosecutors used their peremptory challenges to prevent all four prospective black jurors from serving on the jury. Foster raised a Batson challenge, arguing that prosecutors use of those strikes were racially motivated. The state habeas court denied relief and the Georgia Supreme Court denied Foster the Certificate of Probable Cause required to file an appeal. Fosters only recourse was to file petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the denial. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. JUSTICE ALITO_Throughout all stages of this litigation, the State has strenuously objected that race [was] not a factor in its jury selection strategy. Indeed, at times the State has been downright indignant. The contents of the prosecutions file, however, plainly belie the States claim that it exercised its strikes in a color-blind manner. The sheer number of references to race in that file is arresting. The State, however, claims that things are not quite as bad as they seem. The focus on black prospective jurors, it contends, does not indicate any attempt to exclude them from the jury. It instead reflects an effort to ensure that the State was thoughtful and non-discriminatory in [its] consideration of black prospective jurors [and] to develop and maintain detailed information on those prospective jurors in order to properly defend against any suggestion that decisions regarding [its] selections were pretextual. Batson, after all, had come down only months before Fosters trial. The prosecutors, according to the State, were uncertain what sort of showing might be demanded of them and wanted to be prepared. This argument falls flat. To begin, it reeks of afterthought, having never before been made in the nearly 30-year history of this litigation: not in the trial court, not in the state habeas court, and not even in the States brief in opposition to Fosters petition for certiorari. In addition, the focus on race in the prosecutions file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury. The State argues that it was actively seeking a black juror. But this claim is not credible. An N appeared next to each of the black prospective jurors names on the jury venire list. An N was also noted next to the name of each black prospective juror on the list of the 42 qualified prospective jurors; each of those names also appeared on the definite NOs list. And a draft affidavit from the prosecutions investigator stated his view that [i]f it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors, [Marilyn] Garrett, might be okay. Such references are inconsistent with attempts to actively see[k] a black juror. The States new argument today does not dissuade us from the conclusion that its prosecutors were motivated in substantial part by race when they struck Garrett and Hood from the jury 30 years ago. Two peremptory strikes on the basis of race are two more than the Constitution allows. CRITICAL THINKING The Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky provided a three-step process for determining when a strike is discriminatory: First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race; second, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a raceneutral basis for striking the juror in question; and third, in light of the parties submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination. What possible problems might arise that prevent a court from rightfully determining a strike is discriminatory as happened in this case? What changes would you make to the three-step process to prevent further transgressions? ETHICAL DECISION MAKING Which values does this decision tend to emphasize?