Washington — The Supreme Court docket on Tuesday declined a bid from a Black man on dying row in Texas for the homicide of his estranged White spouse and two kids who argued he was convicted and sentenced to dying by biased jurors who had expressed opposition to interracial marriage.
Andre Thomas was charged with capital homicide in 2005 after killing his estranged spouse, their 4-year-old son, who was biracial, and his spouse's 13-month-old daughter, which his attorneys stated occurred throughout a schizophrenic episode.
Throughout the murders, Thomas tried to take away the hearts of his three victims, considering he may "set them free from evil," in line with courtroom filings. He then stabbed himself within the chest, and later confessed to the killings to police. Thomas pleaded not responsible by motive of madness. Whereas in jail ready for his trial, Thomas gouged out his proper eye, and, 4 years later, eliminated his different eye.
As a result of he was concerned in an interracial relationship, Thomas's trial attorneys and the state requested potential jurors for his or her angle towards interracial marriage and procreation, in line with courtroom filings. On written questionnaires, three of the possible jurors expressed opposition to interracial marriage and other people of various racial backgrounds having kids, however have been seated on an all-white jury. A fourth juror, seated as an alternate and in the end excused, additionally declared opposition to folks of various races marrying or having kids.
The jury convicted Thomas for the killings and sentenced him to dying. He then argued first in state courtroom after which in federal courtroom his trial counsel was ineffective as a result of they did not query jurors about their admitted racial biases or strike the biased jurors. Thomas additionally stated seating the jurors against interracial marriage violated his constitutional rights to trial by an neutral jury.
A federal district courtroom, nonetheless, dominated in opposition to Thomas, discovering the juror-bias declare was "speculative" and his attorneys' determination to not query three of the 4 jurors about racial bias was "merely a matter of trial technique." The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the fifth Circuit affirmed the decrease courtroom's ruling.
In an opinion dissenting from the Supreme Court docket's determination to not take up Thomas's enchantment, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the "hostility the jurors expressed of their questionnaire strongly instructed that their presence would infect the proceedings with racial bias."
"By failing to problem, and even query, jurors who have been hostile to interracial marriage in a capital case involving that explosive matter, Thomas' counsel carried out nicely under an goal customary of reasonableness," Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote. "This poor efficiency prejudiced Thomas by depriving him of a good trial."
Sotomayor famous that the case earlier than the Supreme Court docket concerned a "heinous crime apparently dedicated by somebody who suffered extreme psychological trauma," however stated "no jury deciding whether or not to advocate a dying sentence ought to be tainted by potential racial biases that might infect its deliberations or selections."
"The errors on this case render Thomas' dying sentence not solely unreliable, however unconstitutional," she concluded.
Texas officers urged the Supreme Court docket to not take up Thomas' case, arguing his trial counsel questioned one of many jurors at problem "extensively" about racial bias, and the trial courtroom "ensured that the opposite two may render an neutral verdict in view of the proof."
Legal professional Basic Ken Paxton additionally argued Thomas's trial lawyer have been "skilled in conducting trials in Grayson County, Texas, and offered affidavits affirming they made strategic selections in regards to the extent they questioned the jurors at problem about their views on interracial marriage throughout voir dire."