Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Supreme Court of the United States Thomas v. Lumpkin (2022)

Although the challenged jurors gave general affirmations when the trial judge asked if they would “make up [their] mind based on the evidence,” see, e.g., App. to Pet. for Cert. 116a, those answers to general questioning do not absolve defense counsel of failing to question the jurors about racial bias and its potential impact on the verdict and penalty phase deliberations. As this Court has long explained, when a juror “admit [s] prejudice,” general statements of impartiality “can be given little weight.”
Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States Thomas v. Lumpkin (2022)

Thomas’ counsel fell far below an objective standard of reasonableness. In a written questionnaire, four prospective jurors admitted that they either “oppose [d] ” or “vigorously oppose [d] ” interracial marriage and procreation. Yet counsel questioned only one of them (the third juror) about their views on race, and as Judge Higginson recognized in dissent below, that juror “never retreated from his ‘beliefs about interracial marriage.’ ” 995 F. 3d, at 461.
Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States Thomas v. Lumpkin (2022)

Whether Thomas’ psychological disturbances explain or in any way excuse his commission of murder, however, is beside the point. No jury deciding whether to recommend a death sentence should be tainted by potential racial biases that could infect its deliberations or decision, particularly where the case involved an interracial crime. Ignoring issues of racial bias in the jury system “damages ‘both the fact and the perception’ of the jury’s role as ‘a vital check against the wrongful exercise of power by the State.’ ” Pena-Rodriguez v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature