136 S. Ct. 1737 (2016)
In August 1986, police discovered the body of 79-year-old Queen Madge White in her Rome, Georgia home.1
White had been beaten, sexually assaulted, and strangled to death, and her home had been burglarized.2
Timothy Foster confessed to the killing, and White's possessions were recovered from Foster's home and from his two sisters.3
The State indicted Foster on charges of malice murder and burglary and sought the death penalty.4
Jury selection proceeded in two phases.5
Prospective jurors completed detailed questionnaires and underwent voir dire by the trial court, which reduced the pool to 42 qualified jurors including five black individuals.
On the morning the peremptory strikes began, one black juror, Shirley Powell, was excused for cause after notifying the court of a connection to Foster.6
The State exercised nine of its ten peremptory strikes to remove the remaining four black prospective jurors: Eddie Hood, Evelyn Hardge, Mary Turner, and Marilyn Garrett.7
Foster raised a Batson objection during jury selection, which the trial court rejected, and the jury later convicted Foster and sentenced him to death.8
Following sentencing, Foster renewed his Batson claim in a motion for a new trial.9
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion.10
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.11
Foster then filed a state habeas petition in the Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia, again raising his Batson claim.12
While the habeas proceeding was pending, Foster obtained the prosecution's jury selection file through requests under the Georgia Open Records Act.13
The file included four copies of the jury venire list with the names of black prospective jurors highlighted in bright green and marked with the letter B.14
A draft affidavit from an investigator stated that one black juror might be acceptable if the prosecution had to pick a black juror.15
Handwritten notes labeled three black prospective jurors as B#1, B#2, and B#3.16
Typed and handwritten lists had N next to the names of all five qualified black jurors.
A handwritten list titled definite NO's contained the names of all five qualified black jurors.17
A document titled Church of Christ was annotated NO. No Black Church.18
Questionnaires completed by black prospective jurors had their race responses circled.19
The state habeas court denied relief after noting that res judicata barred the claim but also conducting a Batson analysis and finding no purposeful discrimination.
The Georgia Supreme Court denied the Certificate of Probable Cause necessary for Foster to appeal.20
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.21
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court denying Foster a Certificate of Probable Cause on his Batson claim?22
This Court has jurisdiction to review a state court judgment unless it rests on a state law ground that is both independent of the merits of the federal claim and an adequate basis for the decision.23
Yes. The state habeas court applied the doctrine of res judicata to Foster's Batson claim only after conducting a full Batson analysis of the new evidence from the prosecution's file.24
The court determined that Foster had failed to show purposeful discrimination.25
Because the application of the state procedural bar depended on a federal constitutional ruling, the state law ground is not independent of federal law.26
The Court has jurisdiction over Foster's Batson claim.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Alito concurred in the judgment.28
He explained that the Georgia Supreme Court's decision likely rested in part on a state-law res judicata component.
The Superior Court had applied a procedural bar but only after assessing the strength of the federal Batson claim with the new evidence.29
Alito agreed that the federal question should be decided first.30
The case should then be remanded so the state court could reassess its state-law holding free of any misapprehension about the scope of federal law.31
He emphasized that state courts retain authority to structure postconviction review to promote finality while still complying with federal constitutional requirements.32
Justice Thomas dissented on jurisdiction.33
He argued that the Court should have sought clarification from the Georgia Supreme Court before reaching the merits.34
The one-line order denying the certificate of probable cause likely rested on a state procedural bar.35
The presumption from Michigan v. Long does not apply to unexplained orders.36
Thomas maintained that the lurking state-law procedural bar was an independent ground that would oust the Court of jurisdiction.37
He would have vacated and remanded for clarification rather than assume a federal question was presented.38
Whether the state courts clearly erred in finding that the prosecution did not engage in purposeful discrimination when striking black prospective jurors Garrett and Hood?39
Under Batson v. Kentucky, at the third step the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination, and this Court defers to state court factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.40
Yes. The prosecution's file contained numerous race-based notations, including highlighting black jurors in green, labeling them with B, and a list of definite NO's that included all black jurors.41
The prosecution's explanations for striking Garrett and Hood shifted over time and were contradicted by the record, as white jurors with similar characteristics were accepted.42
The focus on race in the file demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.43
The state courts clearly erred in finding no purposeful discrimination.44
The state courts clearly erred in finding no purposeful discrimination.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Alito concurred in the judgment.
He agreed that the totality of the evidence now adduced by Foster was sufficient to make out a Batson violation.45
Alito wrote separately to explain his understanding of the role of state law on remand.46
He noted that the Georgia Supreme Court would be bound to accept the federal evaluation but that whether that conclusion justified relief under state res judicata law remained a matter for the state court.47
Alito stressed the importance of respecting state authority to structure postconviction review while ensuring compliance with Batson.48
Justice Thomas dissented on the merits.49
He argued that the new evidence has limited probative value because the prosecutors denied making the highlighted marks and the investigator's recollections were vague.50
Thomas maintained that the Court should defer to the trial court's credibility determinations made decades earlier.51
He contended that the new evidence does not justify reassessment of the strikes of Garrett and Hood.52
Thomas also criticized the majority for inviting prisoners to search prosecutors' files long after conviction to relitigate Batson claims.53