Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court of the United States speaks at BookExpo in New York City on May 30, 2019. (Photo: Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Oct 11, 2022
The right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday voted not to take up the case of Andre Thomas, a death row inmate in Texas, despite evidence that the jury that convicted him of murder in 2005 included jurors who were racist.
The vote was 6-3, with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
"Thomas' case undermines principles this court has repeatedly and forcefully protected: the right to an impartial jury, and the recognition that overt racial bias in the criminal justice system must be eradicated."
Thomas, who is Black and was diagnosed as having schizophrenia after his arrest, was convicted of murdering his wife, their son, and his wife's daughter in 2004. Thomas' wife was white and their child was biracial.
Three of the jurors expressed disapproval of interracial marriage before they were named members of the all-white jury, which Thomas' attorney, Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said in court filings violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury of his peers.
"Thomas' case undermines principles this court has repeatedly and forcefully protected: the right to an impartial jury, and the recognition that overt racial bias in the criminal justice system must be eradicated," Ifill said in a court filing.
One of the jurors said in a questionnaire that they believed interracial marriage is "harmful for the children involved because they do not have a specific race to belong to," while another said people should "stay with [their] Blood Line."
As Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern wrote on social media, state prosecutors at times appeared to be seeking out jurors with racist views.
\u201cThe Texas prosecutor seemed to stoke the jurors' racial bias, asking them if they would "take the risk" of the Black defendant "asking your daughter out, or your granddaughter out?" \n\nBut the Supreme Court refused to take the case by a 6\u20133 vote. https://t.co/iKR2eMfoUU\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1665495260
The lawyers representing Thomas in the original case did not object to the three jurors.
Ifill called Tuesday's ruling "very disappointing."
\u201cOne of @NAACP_LDF 's. Juror bias and ineffective assistance. Grateful to Justices Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson for the reminder in dissent: "it is ultimately the duty of the courts to confront racial animus in the justice system." Very disappointing cert denial.\u201d— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sherrilyn Ifill) 1665496025
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, argued in court filings that all the jurors had been questioned about racial bias and claimed it had been determined that the jury could render an unbiased verdict.
In her dissenting opinion on Tuesday, Sotomayor said Thomas' "conviction and death sentence clearly violate the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel."
"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," said Sotomayor.
"The errors in this case render Thomas' death sentence not only unreliable, but unconstitutional," the justice added. "I would not permit the state to execute Andre Thomas in light of the ineffective assistance that he received."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday voted not to take up the case of Andre Thomas, a death row inmate in Texas, despite evidence that the jury that convicted him of murder in 2005 included jurors who were racist.
The vote was 6-3, with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
"Thomas' case undermines principles this court has repeatedly and forcefully protected: the right to an impartial jury, and the recognition that overt racial bias in the criminal justice system must be eradicated."
Thomas, who is Black and was diagnosed as having schizophrenia after his arrest, was convicted of murdering his wife, their son, and his wife's daughter in 2004. Thomas' wife was white and their child was biracial.
Three of the jurors expressed disapproval of interracial marriage before they were named members of the all-white jury, which Thomas' attorney, Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said in court filings violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury of his peers.
"Thomas' case undermines principles this court has repeatedly and forcefully protected: the right to an impartial jury, and the recognition that overt racial bias in the criminal justice system must be eradicated," Ifill said in a court filing.
One of the jurors said in a questionnaire that they believed interracial marriage is "harmful for the children involved because they do not have a specific race to belong to," while another said people should "stay with [their] Blood Line."
As Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern wrote on social media, state prosecutors at times appeared to be seeking out jurors with racist views.
\u201cThe Texas prosecutor seemed to stoke the jurors' racial bias, asking them if they would "take the risk" of the Black defendant "asking your daughter out, or your granddaughter out?" \n\nBut the Supreme Court refused to take the case by a 6\u20133 vote. https://t.co/iKR2eMfoUU\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1665495260
The lawyers representing Thomas in the original case did not object to the three jurors.
Ifill called Tuesday's ruling "very disappointing."
\u201cOne of @NAACP_LDF 's. Juror bias and ineffective assistance. Grateful to Justices Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson for the reminder in dissent: "it is ultimately the duty of the courts to confront racial animus in the justice system." Very disappointing cert denial.\u201d— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sherrilyn Ifill) 1665496025
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, argued in court filings that all the jurors had been questioned about racial bias and claimed it had been determined that the jury could render an unbiased verdict.
In her dissenting opinion on Tuesday, Sotomayor said Thomas' "conviction and death sentence clearly violate the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel."
"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," said Sotomayor.
"The errors in this case render Thomas' death sentence not only unreliable, but unconstitutional," the justice added. "I would not permit the state to execute Andre Thomas in light of the ineffective assistance that he received."
The right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday voted not to take up the case of Andre Thomas, a death row inmate in Texas, despite evidence that the jury that convicted him of murder in 2005 included jurors who were racist.
The vote was 6-3, with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
"Thomas' case undermines principles this court has repeatedly and forcefully protected: the right to an impartial jury, and the recognition that overt racial bias in the criminal justice system must be eradicated."
Thomas, who is Black and was diagnosed as having schizophrenia after his arrest, was convicted of murdering his wife, their son, and his wife's daughter in 2004. Thomas' wife was white and their child was biracial.
Three of the jurors expressed disapproval of interracial marriage before they were named members of the all-white jury, which Thomas' attorney, Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said in court filings violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury of his peers.
"Thomas' case undermines principles this court has repeatedly and forcefully protected: the right to an impartial jury, and the recognition that overt racial bias in the criminal justice system must be eradicated," Ifill said in a court filing.
One of the jurors said in a questionnaire that they believed interracial marriage is "harmful for the children involved because they do not have a specific race to belong to," while another said people should "stay with [their] Blood Line."
As Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern wrote on social media, state prosecutors at times appeared to be seeking out jurors with racist views.
\u201cThe Texas prosecutor seemed to stoke the jurors' racial bias, asking them if they would "take the risk" of the Black defendant "asking your daughter out, or your granddaughter out?" \n\nBut the Supreme Court refused to take the case by a 6\u20133 vote. https://t.co/iKR2eMfoUU\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1665495260
The lawyers representing Thomas in the original case did not object to the three jurors.
Ifill called Tuesday's ruling "very disappointing."
\u201cOne of @NAACP_LDF 's. Juror bias and ineffective assistance. Grateful to Justices Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson for the reminder in dissent: "it is ultimately the duty of the courts to confront racial animus in the justice system." Very disappointing cert denial.\u201d— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sherrilyn Ifill) 1665496025
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, argued in court filings that all the jurors had been questioned about racial bias and claimed it had been determined that the jury could render an unbiased verdict.
In her dissenting opinion on Tuesday, Sotomayor said Thomas' "conviction and death sentence clearly violate the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel."
"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," said Sotomayor.
"The errors in this case render Thomas' death sentence not only unreliable, but unconstitutional," the justice added. "I would not permit the state to execute Andre Thomas in light of the ineffective assistance that he received."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.