Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Case Update: Foster v. Chatman

Anybody who's been around a criminal courtroom for more than three weeks knows that defense lawyers want as many blacks on the jury as they can get, and the prosecutor wants as few.  For a very simple reason:  blacks tend to be more distrustful of authority, and are less likely to believe police officers.  Figure that.

I wonder how, and whether, that's going to change after the Supreme Court's decision on Monday in Foster v. Chatman.  

Foster had been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Georgia nearly thirty years ago.  To his eternal gratitude, Georgia has one of the most liberal public records acts in the country:  somehow, he managed to get the prosecutor's file notes.  There had been four black jurors on the venire, and the prosecution used their peremptories to get rid of all of them.

Their notes indicated that this was very much a matter of design.  Included in the document dump were four copies of the jury venire list, with the names of each black juror highlighted in green.  There was a legend at the top of each page indicating that the green highlighting "represents Blacks."  Lest that be too subtle for some of the team, there was a letter "B" next to each of the names of the black jurors.  Alas, no indication there was a letter "B" at the top of the form stating that the letter "represents blacks."

And what's even worse than what they did is they're still lying about it.  In a habeas proceeding after the documents were released, the trial court nonetheless held that the justifications advanced by the lead prosecutor, Lanier, for the removal of the blacks had "no discriminatory intent," and that there were "reasonably clear, specific, and legitimate reasons" for the strikes.  Roberts' opinion for the 7-1 majority finds

Lanier's justifications for the strike seem reasonable enough. Our independent examination of the record, however, reveals that much of the reasoning provided by Lanier has no grounding in fact.

Those are pretty harsh words, but it only gets worse for Lanier as Roberts spend the next eleven pages chronicling "Lanier's misrepresentations to the trial court," concluding that there was a clear discriminatory intent with at least two black jurors.  Most galling to the Court was the prosecutors' claim that the focus on black jurors in the venire list and notes was an effort to make sure 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."

The Court found the argument

"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 State's brief in opposition to Foster's peti­tion for certiorari.

But that's the problem with Foster:  it's so fact-specific that its precedential value is virtually nil.  If this wasn't a Batson violation, it's hard to figure out what would be.

The basic problem with Batson is that it's virtually impossible to enforce.  Peremptory strikes can be made for any reason or no reason.  Sure, when a black juror is struck, the prosecutor can be compelled to articulate a non-discriminatory for the strike, but that's not at all difficult, because just about any justification short of "I don't want coloreds on the jury" will be deemed sufficient.  In the ten years I've been doing this, I've come across only a handful of successful Batson challenges, and one of them was a sua sponte challenge by the trial judge when a defense lawyer she didn't like used a peremptory on a white juror. 

Back when I discussed the oral argument in Foster, I wrote:

Just reminding courts -- and prosecutors -- that there is such a thing as a successful Batson challenge will help.  Frankly, I'd settle for that.

I guess I'll have to.

Search

Recent Entries

  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture
  • July 20, 2017
    Case Update
    A look at the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Oles, and did you know that Justice Ginsburg has a .311 batting average with runners in scoring position? Oh, wait...
  • July 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Judicial bias, RVO specs, 26(B) stuff, waivers of counsel... And more!
  • July 17, 2017
    No more Anders Briefs?
    I have a case now in the 8th District where I came close to filing an Anders brief the other week. It's an appeal from a plea and sentence. The plea hearing was flawless. The judge imposed consecutive sentences, and...
  • July 13, 2017
    Sex offenders and the First Amendment
    Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Packingham v. North Carolina
  • July 12, 2017
    Removing a retained attorney
    What does a judge do if he thinks a retained attorney in a criminal case isn't competent?
  • July 11, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The court does good work on a juvenile bindover case, and the State finally figures out that it should have indicted someone in the first place
  • July 10, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS ends its term; the Ohio Supreme Court issues another opinion, and likely the last one, on the trial tax