SCOTUS Weighs in on Black Man Sentenced to Death by All-White Jury

A Georgia man on death row, Tyrone Foster, may get a second chance after the Supreme Court weighed in on the evidence of racial bias found in his jury trial. SCOTUS’s decision overturned the Georgia Supreme Court ruling, and will most likely lead to a new trial for Foster–29 years after he was first sentenced to death.

Foster, a black man charged with the rape and murder of an elderly white woman, Queen Madge White, was tried by an all-white jury. Moreover, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the prosecutors wanted it that way–they struck black jurors for reasons that appeared to be racially motivated. For example, in the notes that the prosecutors took during jury selection, they marked black potential jurors with a “b.” According to the LA Times, one black juror was excluded because the prosecutor said that “his son was convicted of ‘basically the same thing’ as the defendant, who was charged with rape and murder. In fact, the man’s son had been given a suspended sentence five years earlier for stealing hubcaps from a car.” Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the decision, wrote that “the focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.”

A 1986 case, Batson v. Kentucky, made it clear that it’s up to judges to watch over prosecutors when it comes to jury selection, and probe their choices if anything seems amiss. But that process does rely on judges to actually follow through–and in Foster’s case, the judges accepted the prosecutors’ reasoning for why certain jurors were selected and others weren’t.

But Foster’s case is also somewhat rare, in that the defendant’s lawyers were actually able to prove that there was racial motivation in the jury selection. Stephen Bright of the Southern Center of Human Rights, who was Foster’s lead lawyer, pointed out:

This discrimination became apparent only because we obtained the prosecution’s notes which revealed their intent to discriminate. Usually that does not happen. The practice of discriminating in striking juries continues in courtrooms across the country. Usually courts ignore patterns of race discrimination and accept false reasons for the strikes.

Foster’s case will now be reevaluated–and while it’s not ensured he’ll receive a new trial, it certainly seems like the most likely possibility.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.