Snyder v. Louisiana and Racial Issues in Peremptory Challenges

This death penalty case from Louisiana presents another fairly straightforward issue, but it is an issue that has been mired in tremendous complexity because of three decisions of the US Supreme Court. The issue comes down to the fact that Mr. Snyder, an African-American male, was sentenced to death in 1996 by an all white jury for the fatal stabbing of his wife's male companion. Well, it isn't simply the fact of its being an all-white jury that is behind the case; it is that all five prospective African-American jurors were all excluded from the jury panel by the prosecutor's peremptory challenges. A peremptory challenge differs from a challenge for cause in that the former can be used to dismiss a juror for any reason at all.

Well, we have to qualify that last statement just a little bit. Ever since the Court's landmark decisions in the Swain case (360 US 202 (1965)) and the Batson case (476 US 79 (1986)), prosecutors have been forbidden to exclude a person from a jury in a peremptory challenge solely on grounds of race. But what the Court established in these two cases was that when there was a suspicion of discriminatory intent to eliminate a juror, the defendant had to come forward with a prima facie case of that intent, the prosecutor then had to give a neutral or non-discriminatory explanation and then, the defendant, had to try to show that the prosecutor's explanation was, in fact, not credible. There was no requirement that the prosecutor show that his/her explanation was persuasive or even largely plausible; it simply had to be an explanation that was non-racially motivated.

But here we see we are caught in a filmy soup of words, aren't we? Of course a prosecutor will give a "non- discriminatory" explanation of why a particular juror was peremptorily dismissed. How can you tell, however, whether the prosecutor's explanation is nothing but a "cover" for discrimination, an attempt to "rig" the jury pool so that conviction is easier? In an attempt to deal with this problem, the Supreme Court handed down its Miller-El case in 2005 (545 US 231). The Court concluded that in such a case the defendant was permitted to raise "all relevant circumstances" that might lead a court to conclude that discrimination in jury selection had taken place.

We really see now how squishy and not hard and fast law is, because this crucial legal determination is made now by people who are trying to divine what is going on in the mind and is manifest in the conduct of the prosecutor. In this case the prosecutor seemed to play the "race card" at the beginning of the trial. Snyder's trial happened just a year after OJ Simpson had been acquitted by a Los Angeles jury. The Louisiana prosecutor, James Williams, had made statements to the press that this case was his "OJ Simpson case." Even if that reference isn't crystal clear, it indicates that Williams was injecting the "race card" early in the proceedings.

So, What's The Issue Here?

In this case everything really comes down to the prosecution's dismissal of one potential juror, Mr. Jeffrey Brooks, from the panel. I mentioned earlier that five African-American jurors were dismissed peremptorily, but good reason exists for not challenging at least three of the other dismissals. The Louisiana Supreme Court goes through these others in its opinion (which, maddeningly, isn't published through the Louisiana Supreme Court's web site. Why not??; the decision is available at 942 So2d 484 (Louisiana, 2006)).

With respect to Mr. Brooks, the state originally accepted him as a juror, later "backstruck" him. The prosecutor's reasons for striking Brooks were that he was "very nervous" throughout questioning and that he would be missing class, as a student teacher, if chosen to serve on the jury." As the prosecutor stated, "He's a student teacher. My main concern is for that reason, that being that he might, to go home quickly, come back with guilty of a lesser verdict so there wouldn't be a penalty phase," 942 So. 2d at 493.

As you might imagine, defense counsel was quick to respond. "His main problem yesterday was the fact that he didn't know if he would miss some teaching time as a student teacher. The clerk called the school and whoever it was and the Dean said that wouldn't be a problem..." Then, the defense further stated, "As far as him looking nervous, hell, everybody out here looks nervous. I'm nervous."

Well, the lower court allowed the peremptory challenge, Snyder was convicted and sentenced to death, the State Supreme Court upheld the sentence, the US Supreme Court told the Louisiana Supreme Court to "reconsider" its decision in the light of Miller-El, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, in 2006, reaffirmed Snyder's sentence, though by a narrow (4-3) majority. That is why the case is back at the US Supreme Court again--did the Louisiana Supreme Court correctly read the Court's precedents and apply them correctly to Snyder?

Conclusion

So, this is the legal question before the US Supreme Court. Should the prosecution have been able to eliminate Brooks from the panel or was their excuse simply a 'cover' for impermissible racial discrimination? The Supreme Court's law is that a defendant may bring up all relevant circumstances to try to determine if impermissible bias attended a peremptory challenge. What do you think? The Supreme Court has been "leaning right" on almost all issues in the past few years; it wouldn't surprise me if this is a very close decision, but I think they will reverse the Louisiana Supreme Court...

3088