Kavanaugh Takes Lead Role Favoring Mississippi Death Row Inmate
During an hourlong argument in Flowers v. Mississippi, justices from across the spectrum expressed displeasure at the handling of Curtis Flowers' six trials for the same crime.
March 20, 2019 at 02:31 PM
4 minute read
Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices, led by Brett Kavanaugh, joined forces with liberals on Wednesday in what came across as a likely win for Mississippi death-row inmate Curtis Flowers in his lengthy battle against jury selection bias.
During an hourlong argument in Flowers v. Mississippi, justices from across the spectrum expressed displeasure at the handling of Flowers' six trials for the same crime by prosecutor Doug Evans, who persistently used peremptory challenges to strike African-Americans from the jury pool.
Flowers, who is African-American, was accused of murdering four people in 1996 at a furniture store in Winona, Mississippi. If Flowers wins at the high court, his legal battle is not over. His case could return to Mississippi courts for yet another trial, or for further consideration of past jury selection bias.
A key issue in the argument was whether the Supreme Court, in deciding the case before it, could take into consideration only Flowers' most recent trial or also look at the race-laced record of the previous five trials.
Kavanaugh made short shrift of the dilemma, asserting that under court precedent, “We can't take the history out of the case.” In grilling Mississippi's lawyer, Jason Davis, Kavanaugh stated, “It was 42 potential African-Americans and 41 were stricken, right? That's relevant, correct?”
Later, Kavanaugh said: “When you look at the 41 out or 42, how do you look at that and not come away thinking that was going on here was … a stereotype that you're just going to favor someone because they're the same race as the defendant.”
Kavanaugh has been critical of biased jury strikes since he was a Yale Law School in 1989, when he wrote a law review note about the 1986 Batson v. Kentucky case, which ruled that potential jurors cannot be excluded on the basis of race. He wrote that “the defense must be present” to be able to rebut a prosecutor's claim that race was not the reason for a peremptory strike.
In his 2006 confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh said, “I think one of the great Supreme Court decisions ever decided was Batson v. Kentucky.”
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who has also supported the Batson ruling, seemed concerned Wednesday about the “unusual” history of the Flowers case and whether that history could be cited in the context of his most recent trial. But by the end, Roberts seemed to have decided that no court precedent prevents the court from weighing the history.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. also said the history of Flowers's case is “deeply troubling.” But he went on to closely question the details of the sixth trial, in which Evans struck five of the six African-American potential jurors. Alito seemed to support the notion that the sixth trial was the only one that counts in the high court's decision-making.
The argument Wednesday was also notable because Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question for the first time since 2016. He has said in the past that he comes to an argument with questions in mind, but if other justices ask his questions, he is content to remain silent.
Toward the very end of the argument Wednesday, Thomas asked a question no other justice had raised: whether the defense attorney had exercised any peremptory challenges in the most recent trial. Flowers' lawyer, Sheri Lynn Johnson, a professor at Cornell Law School, responded that Flowers' trial lawyer had struck six potential jurors, all white.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected to note that there were almost no black jurors left for the defense to strike.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250