WASHINGTON — A recent Supreme Court case, Pitchford v. Cain, raises concerns extending beyond jury selection, focusing on whether federal courts can meaningfully review claims of racial discrimination in criminal trials, according to an article by Robyn Nicole Sanders in Slate. Sanders wrote that, while some Supreme Court cases are highly abstract, this one is different because “the doctrinal maze is itself the story.”
At first glance, the case asks whether racial discrimination infected the selection of the jury that convicted Terry Pitchford, Sanders explained. But she said the dispute has evolved into a broader question: whether federal courts, constrained by modern habeas corpus law, are permitted to say anything meaningful about that possibility at all.
The case is rooted in Batson v. Kentucky, which established that prosecutors may not use peremptory strikes to exclude prospective jurors on the basis of race. Sanders argued that Pitchford’s case shows what happens when that principle collides with the procedural barriers of modern post-conviction review. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), federal courts must defer to state court rulings unless those decisions are not merely wrong, but unreasonable.
Because of that standard, Sanders wrote that even serious equal protection claims can be reduced to procedural questions, such as whether defense counsel said enough, precisely enough, and at exactly the right moment to preserve the issue. That shift, she argued, places greater importance on courtroom timing and phrasing than on the substance of discrimination claims.
Pitchford was tried in Mississippi in 2006 and convicted by a jury that included one Black juror in a county that was about 40% Black, according to Sanders. She reported that the prosecutor marked prospective jurors by race and struck each of the first four qualified Black jurors while accepting 16 of the first 18 qualified white jurors. She also noted that three Black jurors were never asked any questions during voir dire.
During trial, defense counsel raised a Batson objection, arguing there was a trend of striking nearly all available Black jurors. The judge then asked for race-neutral explanations, accepted each explanation as race neutral and moved on, Sanders wrote. She said that moment is critical because Batson requires a third step: determining whether those explanations are credible or instead pretextual.
According to Sanders, Pitchford argues that the trial court completed only the first two Batson steps and skipped the third. She explained that the final step requires courts to examine patterns of strikes, lack of questioning, disparate treatment of similarly situated white jurors, implausible justifications, a prosecutor’s history and the overall context of voir dire.
Even so, Mississippi courts ruled that Pitchford’s claims were waived because his attorney did not fully present them during trial. When the case reached the Supreme Court, Sanders wrote, the justices agreed to review a narrower question: whether state courts unreasonably determined that Pitchford had waived his right to rebut the prosecutor’s asserted race-neutral reasons.
During oral arguments, several justices focused on whether the defense had properly preserved the claim. Clarence Thomas asked directly whether trial counsel had made those arguments. Sanders wrote that Pitchford’s attorney responded that the third step never occurred, rather than clearly stating that the arguments had been made.
John Roberts pointed to ambiguity in the trial transcript, referencing defense counsel’s statement that “at some point the defense is going to want to reserve.” Sanders reported that some justices, including Ketanji Brown Jackson, interpreted that exchange as the judge potentially cutting counsel off. Sonia Sotomayor also expressed concern that the trial judge had never actually performed Batson’s third step at all.
Other justices were more skeptical. Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that lawyers still have to make their record. Samuel Alito criticized the defense attorney as “the most timid and reticent.” Neil Gorsuch similarly noted that AEDPA strips the case of some of its moral force, Sanders wrote.
Mississippi argued that Pitchford failed to preserve later-developed pretext arguments. The state also pointed to later post-conviction filings and defense counsel’s own affidavit as evidence that those claims had not been fully raised during trial, according to Sanders.
Sanders wrote that a ruling for Mississippi would do more than reject one person’s appeal. It would, she argued, further expose structural weakness in Batson itself. Batson depends heavily on the quick instincts of trial judges and the precision of trial lawyers, while AEDPA adds another filter, making outcomes depend on whether the transcript captures the right verbal choreography.
She added that almost any explanation can be labeled race neutral, making Batson’s third step the only meaningful safeguard. If that pretext analysis can be skipped, Sanders warned, Batson’s promise becomes thinner still, while habeas review risks turning constitutional claims into sterile questions of state-court reasonableness.
Ultimately, Sanders concluded that the case sits where those two dangers meet. The Constitution forbids racial discrimination in jury selection because jury service is an exercise of civic power, she wrote. The central question now is whether those protections still have real force when the record is messy, the procedure is rushed and the law of review is designed to look away.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
