WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a Black death row inmate’s appeal over claims he did not receive a fair trial because several jurors had expressed opposition to interracial relationships.
The conservative majority court’s decision not to hear the case, over the dissent of the court’s three liberal justices, leaves in place Andre Thomas’s conviction and death sentence.
“No jury deciding whether to recommend a death sentence should be tainted by potential racial biases that could infect its deliberation or decision, particularly where the case involved an interracial crime,” wrote liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She was joined by fellow liberals Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
In 2004 Thomas murdered his estranged wife, Laura Boren, their four-year-old son Andre Boren and his 13-month-old step-daughter Leyha Hughes in Sherman, Texas. He stabbed all three to death and attempted to remove their hearts, saying later he hoped to “set them free from evil,” according to court filings. He also attempted suicide.
Thomas, now 39, later turned himself in and confessed. While awaiting trial for the murder of Leyha Hughes, in which he claimed he was not guilty by reason of insanity, Thomas gouged out one of his eyeballs after reading a passage in the Bible, the filings said. Years later he removed his other eye and ate it.
Prosecutors agreed that Thomas was in a psychotic state when he committed the murders but countered that it was caused by Thomas’ actions in ingesting a cough medicine that can cause irrational behavior.
At the 2005 trial for the murder of Leyha Hughes, the all-white jury found that Thomas was guilty and sentenced him to death.
In contesting his conviction, Thomas’ lawyers argued that the jury was tainted because three members during the selection process had expressed opposition to people of different races marrying or having children, which was pertinent to the facts of the case because of Thomas’ marriage to Boren.
One juror said that he opposed interracial relationships because it was “against God’s will,” according to court filings. Another said “we should stay within our blood line” when asked the same question. The third juror said interracial relationships are harmful to children because “they do not have a specific race to belong to.”
At the trial, the prosecutor also asked the jury, “Are you going to take the risk about him asking your daughter out or your granddaughter out.” Thomas’ lawyers said the statement appealed to the jury’s biases.
Thomas says his right to a fair trial under the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment was violated on two counts: that he was not tried by an impartial jury and that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to the jurors being selected.
The state’s lawyers argue in part that all three jurors said they would follow the law as instructed and could deliver an impartial verdict.
Source: | This article originally belongs to Nbcnews.com
