Supreme Court Racial Bias Ruling Vacates Mississippi Man’s Death Sentence

In a significant Supreme Court racial bias decision, the justices on Thursday sided with a Mississippi man sent to death row, upholding a lower court’s move to vacate his conviction over concerns about discrimination in jury selection. The 5-4 ruling found that Terry Pitchford, who is Black, was never given a fair chance to challenge the dismissal of four Black potential jurors during his trial.

The decision carries added weight because it marks the second time the high court has effectively overturned a capital case tied to the same Mississippi prosecutor accused of systematically excluding Black jurors.

The Crime and the Conviction

Pitchford was convicted of murder in 2006 and sentenced to death by a Mississippi jury. According to court filings, it was his partner, not Pitchford, who fatally shot shop owner Reuben Britt with a .22-caliber pistol during an armed robbery. Pitchford, who was 18 at the time, was accused of acting as an accomplice.

For two decades, he maintained that his conviction was invalid, pointing to what he described as racially biased jury selection. The numbers he cited were striking: only one of the twelve jurors who heard his case was Black, in a county where roughly 40 percent of the population is African American.

A Prosecutor With a Troubling History

What made the case especially concerning, according to Pitchford, was the identity of the prosecutor responsible for selecting the jury. That prosecutor, Doug Evans, had a documented history of working to keep Black people off juries.

This was not the first time Evans’s conduct drew the Supreme Court’s attention:

• In 2019, the court reversed the conviction of another Black Mississippi man, Curtis Flowers, whom Evans had also prosecuted in a capital murder case.
• Flowers had been tried six times, and the justices found, 7-2, that Evans had worked relentlessly to exclude Black jurors.

Pitchford’s attorneys argued that Evans employed similar tactics during his trial, selecting a disproportionate number of White jurors compared to Black ones.

The Numbers Behind the Selection

The details of the jury selection process painted a vivid picture. After the judge had excused various potential jurors, the remaining pool consisted of 36 White people and five Black people.

Evans then used seven peremptory challenges in a telling pattern:

• He struck four of the five Black prospective jurors.
• He struck three of the White prospective jurors.

Adding to the concern, court records showed that Evans had marked up his juror list by placing a “W” next to the names of White people and a “B” next to the names of Black people.

The Legal Standard at the Heart of the Case

The dispute ultimately turned on whether Pitchford’s attorney had taken the proper steps to challenge the racially biased selections. Under the legal system, attorneys on both sides may strike jurors without offering a reason, a practice known as a peremptory challenge.

However, the Supreme Court established important limits in the 1986 case Batson v. Kentucky, ruling that such strikes cannot be used to exclude a juror solely because of race. That prohibition was later extended to cover gender as well, and the case laid out a multistep test for courts to identify discrimination during jury selection.

Pitchford argued that his attorneys were denied the opportunity to challenge the selections under the Batson framework. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected that claim, concluding that his attorneys had waived their right to challenge the selection during the trial, and declined to review the matter on appeal.

The Majority’s Reasoning

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that the standard trial-court procedure for resolving such claims had broken down. He noted that, whether due to confusion, oversight, an overly hurried selection process, or some other cause, the proper step for addressing the racial bias claim never took place, despite repeated efforts by Pitchford’s counsel to preserve the objection.

The majority ultimately sided with a federal court’s 2023 ruling that had vacated Pitchford’s conviction and death sentence and ordered a new trial.

Notably, the alignment of the justices defied typical expectations. Both Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts broke from their conservative colleagues to side with Pitchford.

The Dissent

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. Gorsuch expressed skepticism about Pitchford’s account, arguing that the claim of a silenced defense team was difficult to reconcile with the trial record. He went further, suggesting that even if the account were plausible, it still would not be sufficient to warrant the outcome.

The Role of the Partner

The case records also shed light on the differing fates of the two men involved in the robbery. Pitchford’s partner, Eric Bullins, was charged with capital murder but was not eligible for the death penalty because he was 16 at the time of the killing.

Bullins ultimately pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received a 20-year prison sentence. According to Pitchford’s filings, he himself was armed with a gun loaded with pellets intended to kill rats and did not shoot Britt. Pitchford has said he fired into the floor when Bullins turned the weapon on the shop owner.

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court racial bias ruling clears the way for Pitchford to receive a new trial, two decades after his original conviction. The decision underscores the enduring importance of the protections established in Batson v. Kentucky and reflects ongoing judicial scrutiny of how race factors into jury selection.

For Pitchford, the ruling represents a long-awaited opportunity to challenge the process that sent him to death row. More broadly, the case serves as a reminder that the integrity of jury selection remains a central concern in the American justice system, and that even longstanding convictions can be revisited when questions of fairness arise. As a developing story, further details are expected as the case proceeds toward a new trial.