What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Flowers v. Mississippi and the legacy of Batson v. Kentucky (1 Viewer)

Henry Ford

Henry Ford

Footballguy
Curtis Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death in 2010.  Again.  For the fourth time.  For the same murders.

The case has been overturned three times on prosecutorial misconduct, and had two hung juries.  During the second hung jury, the trial judge summoned the holdout juror and had him arrested. 

Two of the three times his conviction was overturned, it was due to unquestionable violations Batson v. Kentucky, which essentially says that excluding jurors based on race is a violation of the requirement of equal protection of the laws.

A current challenge again based on Batson had oral argument before the Supreme Court today.  

Kavanaugh is considered a possible swing vote.

Fascinating case.

 
Note: when the article says 

In Flowers’s most recent trial, his lawyer pointed out to the judge that Evans devoted much more time to questioning black potential jurors than whites—as if perhaps searching for some reason to exclude them.
Click to expand...
as I recall, the number of questions by the prosecution for black prospective jurors vs. white ones was something like 26-1

 
Found the citation:

Additionally, Flowers argues that the prosecutor disproportionately questioned black prospective jurors during jury selection compared to their white counterparts, noting that the prosecutor asked 145 questions of the black jurors

[...]

12 total questions of the white jurors that he kept on the jury.
Click to expand...
That's 145 questions of six prospective black jurors, and 12 total questions of eleven white jurors.  24-1.

In the total number of trials (six) the prosecutor used 42 peremptory challenges.  41 of them were for black jurors.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I've read the SC seemed pretty much like they were pissed about the obvious racism. So much so Thomas spoke for the first time in 3 years as he apparently wanted to make it clear the defense had a couple white jurors removed.

 
NCCommish said:
From what I've read the SC seemed pretty much like they were pissed about the obvious racism. So much so Thomas spoke for the first time in 3 years as he apparently wanted to make it clear the defense had a couple white jurors removed.
Click to expand...
Yup. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Found the citation:

That's 145 questions of six prospective black jurors, and 12 total questions of eleven white jurors.  24-1.

In the total number of trials (six) the prosecutor used 42 peremptory challenges.  41 of them were for black jurors.
Click to expand...
Can an average non-lawyer do anything to help make things better?

 
We all, or perhaps mostly all is more accurate, seem to acknowledge that racial prejudice and racial solidarity effect peoples perceptions and judgments and yet in jury selection we are not allowed to act on that common knowledge.  the thing is, if only one side is prevented from acting on something which may in fact be true are we skewing the panel.  perhaps we want to.  Perhaps prosecution should have to climb that hill, shallow or steep, to convict persons depriving them of property, liberty, or even life. I have no problem with the standard.  I do have a problem with the insinuations it allows, but so what, balances need to be struck, standards set, and buttercups need to suck it up, not everything is capable of resolving the interests of all evenly.

 
I know that as I exercise my preemptory challenges to a venir of multiple races that I will first exercise it against a person of a different race than the defendant before I do to a venirpreson of the same race, presuming that instance will arise (it does not always).  That helps, in my mind, establish your bona fides that race is not your sole or even dominant criteria in making a decision.  Hopefully race would not come into the calculation at all, but we live in a world were verdicts are based on emotion and reason with emotion, including racial solidarity, and evening scores or past wrongs enters the calculation.  The system is imperfect as it relies on humans. In the end I support it erring on the side of the accused.  I just wish th emotion could be made without the taint of accusation, but I know it never will.  A cross to bear, maybe, but I suppose a small one in the scheme of things.,

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I know that as I exercise my preemptory challenges to a venir of multiple races that I will first exercise it against a person of a different race than the defendant before I do to a venirpreson of the same race, presuming that instance will arise (it does not always).  That helps, in my mind, establish your bona fides that race is not your sole or even dominant criteria in making a decision.  Hopefully race would not come into the calculation at all, but we live in a world were verdicts are based on emotion and reason with emotion, including racial solidarity, and evening scores or past wrongs enters the calculation.  The system is imperfect as it relies on humans. In the end I support it erring on the side of the accused.  I just wish th emotion could be made without the taint of accusation, but I know it never will.  A cross to bear, maybe, but I suppose a small one in the scheme of things.,
Click to expand...
Batson challenges are pretty common down here.  They're usually treated like any other motion and definitely not meant (nor taken) as an accusation of sanctionable wrongdoing or anything.  I once had a judge pull us up to approach and say "that's a very serious charge you're making against the defense attorney.  Are you sure you want to put that on the record?"  I looked at the defense attorney, whom I had known for years, and said something to the effect of "judge, I'm not accusing him of anything I wouldn't give him hell about over a couple of beers.  I don't think he's a Klan member, I think he's trying to get all of the black jurors off of the jury because he thinks it will help his client.  I think it will hurt my client."  Defense attorney and I were both very confused.

Sounds like where you are it's taken very differently.

 
Henry Ford said:
Batson challenges are pretty common down here.  They're usually treated like any other motion and definitely not meant (nor taken) as an accusation of sanctionable wrongdoing or anything.  I once had a judge pull us up to approach and say "that's a very serious charge you're making against the defense attorney.  Are you sure you want to put that on the record?"  I looked at the defense attorney, whom I had known for years, and said something to the effect of "judge, I'm not accusing him of anything I wouldn't give him hell about over a couple of beers.  I don't think he's a Klan member, I think he's trying to get all of the black jurors off of the jury because he thinks it will help his client.  I think it will hurt my client."  Defense attorney and I were both very confused.

Sounds like where you are it's taken very differently.
Click to expand...
I think there is an accusatory nature to it when a prosecutor has made the preemptory challenge and a defense counsel raises the motion, yes.  Does it cripple me, no.  Now I know the motion has to be made. Hell, it would be ineffective assistance of counsel to not explore it.  That said, some defense counsel are such true believers they really cannot conceive that a preemptory was made for race neutral reasons.  Maybe my beef (small "b") is with the obnoxious self-righteousness of true believer defense counsel who assume animus on behalf of others and not with the practice in theory.  (We get a lot of those types, particularly young defense council working out of the public defenders office.  More experience counsel can make the motion without putting stink on it and they usually do.)

 
Cursory search on Wikipedia (I know, but one has to start somewhere) shows maybe motive (sort of weak and working on presumption upon presumption) and a bit of inconclusive circumstantial evidence ( bloody footprint).  Is there more?

 
He had some cash, or his girlfriend did not the same as the amount stolen, but close.  he also had some gunshot residue on his hand, or something which would make the test positive.  Hell, I have cash on me and am likely to have gunshot residue, fertilizer residue, and maybe even firework residue on my hands half the days between now and July 4th.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Cursory search on Wikipedia (I know, but one has to start somewhere) shows maybe motive (sort of weak and working on presumption upon presumption) and a bit of inconclusive circumstantial evidence ( bloody footprint).  Is there more?
Click to expand...
Jailhouse informant who said Flowers admitted it to him and a witness who said she saw him running away.  Two of that witness's friends testified that she had told them she was being paid to lie on the stand.  A gun that was the same caliber as the gun used was missing from the defendant's uncle's car.  "One particle" of GSR on the defendant's right hand according to forensics, and the casings found at the scene were "consistent with" casings found at the residence of the gun owner whose gun was missing.

$235 in cash found in the defendant's headboard.  $300 was stolen.

May have done it, may have just been involved, may be innocent.  May have just stolen the money after the shooting happened.  Probably never really know.

 
Henry Ford said:
Jailhouse informant who said Flowers admitted it to him and a witness who said she saw him running away.  Two of that witness's friends testified that she had told them she was being paid to lie on the stand.  A gun that was the same caliber as the gun used was missing from the defendant's uncle's car.  "One particle" of GSR on the defendant's right hand according to forensics, and the casings found at the scene were "consistent with" casings found at the residence of the gun owner whose gun was missing.

$235 in cash found in the defendant's headboard.  $300 was stolen.

May have done it, may have just been involved, may be innocent.  May have just stolen the money after the shooting happened.  Probably never really know.
Click to expand...
Does make me wonder.  A cursory look makes me think I would not have filed against him, at least not once the alleged incriminating statements to informants were lost. (Those informants would have to have been bullet proof for me to proceed, and I have rarely thought of jailhouse snitches as bulletproof)

23 years, damn!  He may not be innocent, but guilty as charged proved beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't see it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Batson challenges are pretty common down here.  They're usually treated like any other motion and definitely not meant (nor taken) as an accusation of sanctionable wrongdoing or anything.  I once had a judge pull us up to approach and say "that's a very serious charge you're making against the defense attorney.  Are you sure you want to put that on the record?"  I looked at the defense attorney, whom I had known for years, and said something to the effect of "judge, I'm not accusing him of anything I wouldn't give him hell about over a couple of beers.  I don't think he's a Klan member, I think he's trying to get all of the black jurors off of the jury because he thinks it will help his client.  I think it will hurt my client."  Defense attorney and I were both very confused.

Sounds like where you are it's taken very differently.
Click to expand...
I've made two Batson challenges (one in AZ and another in MN) and both times the prosecutor was insulted by it. 

I think it's very much a regional thing.  Both of those jurisdictions have a disproportionately low number of black people so, frankly, I think prosecutors are even more cognizant of appearing racially neutral. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Does make me wonder.  A cursory look makes me think I would not have filed against him, at least not once the alleged incriminating statements to informants were lost. (Those informants would have to have been bullet proof for me to proceed, and I have rarely thought of jailhouse snitches as bulletproof)

23 years, damn!  He may not be innocent, but guilty as charged proved beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't see it.
Click to expand...
It's struck me as quite possible that he saw the shooting happen and then went in and took the money and ran.  It's also possible it's a straight-up framing by the police or he's guilty as sin.  Of course, I may have felt differently in the courtroom listening to testimony and viewing evidence.

 
Zow said:
I've made two Batson challenges (one in AZ and another in MN) and both times the prosecutor was insulted by it. 

I think it's very much a regional thing.  Both of those jurisdictions have a disproportionately low number of black people so, frankly, I think prosecutors are even more cognizant of appearing racially neutral. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't consider it would probably  be more offensive in a criminal context, where you're talking about who wins vs. talking about how much someone wins.

We openly discuss in settlement negotiations here that a place where you're going to get a heavily-minority jury is much more likely to get a high award in an injury case.  No matter the race of the plaintiff. Statistically, it's just the way things are, here.  Study after study shows general damage awards (and even special damage awards) go up based on how many minority representatives are on the jury.  

 
Zow said:
I've made two Batson challenges (one in AZ and another in MN) and both times the prosecutor was insulted by it. 

I think it's very much a regional thing.  Both of those jurisdictions have a disproportionately low number of black people so, frankly, I think prosecutors are even more cognizant of appearing racially neutral. 
Click to expand...
To me, if defense counsel rises, says your Honor, may we approach, I would like to raise a Batson matter, and the judge dismisses the panel and the discussion ensues, I have no problem with that.  When defense counsel shouts out that they object as I am impermissibly preventing black jurors from being on the panel, and then the judge has to dismiss the panel and we have a protracted discussion, after which maybe I win or maybe I lose and the panel returns, having wondered about me and the allegation, well I do not like the implication.  No remediative instruction cures the stink in the air, it just draws more attention to the matter.

There is an allegation inherent to the challenge.  It is one of racial animus and professional wrongdoing.  Few here would like such an allegation leveled at them in any other context.  As I said, I understand it, I even support it, but I do wish it was always done so with a modicum of professional courtesy.  That is not always the case. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must say I am surprised that Woz has only made the challenge twice.  It is not an uncommon motion and I do think defense counsel has an obligation to make the motion whenever palpable.  Anything less would arguably rise to ineffective assistance.  Perhaps he works in venues where the prosecution has been fastidious in its use of preemptory challenges.  If so, good for them.  The Prosecutors have a duty and they ought to comport themselves to that duty.  In the instant matter, with the questioning that went on, I have severe reservation that the Prosecutor was anything other than a person who indulged improper motives.  Frankly I find this case very disturbing.

 
In my career I encountered Batson challenges maybe two score times.  The only one I recall losing was in front of an African American judge of a notoriously defense minded bent. I cannot say that I ever prevailed on such a challenge in front of an African American judge, though they are few here and I may have.  This raises an interesting question, were the rulings on the challenge race related?  Did Anglo judges relate to me and accept my representations based on logic, evidence, or upon racial solidarity.  Did the African American judge rule against me in solidarity with a defendant of like race or were my explanations that day less believable, was I demonstrating conscious or subconscious racism?  Or maybe, just maybe the sample size is so damn small as to be meaningless.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
To me, if defense counsel rises, says your Honor, may we approach, I would like to raise a Batson matter, and the judge dismisses the panel and the discussion ensues, I have no problem with that.  When defense counsel shouts out that they object as I am impermissibly preventing black jurors from being on the panel, and then the judge has to dismiss the panel and we have a protracted discussion, after which maybe I win or maybe I lose and the panel returns, having wondered about me and the allegation, well I do not like the implication.  No remediative instruction cures the stink in the air, it just draws more attention to the matter.

There is an allegation inherent to the challenge.  It is one of racial animus and professional wrongdoing.  Few here would like such an allegation leveled at them in any other context.  As I said, I understand it, I even support it, but I do wish it was always done so with a modicum of professional courtesy.  That is not always the case. 
Click to expand...
This is how I did it both times.  Maybe I should have described it better.  In both contexts the prosecutors weren't mad at me or thought I was trying to make them look bad to the jury, they both just seemed genuinely hurt and angered that I would even think that they would let race be a factor. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I must say I am surprised that Woz has only made the challenge twice.  It is not an uncommon motion and I do think defense counsel has an obligation to make the motion whenever palpable.  Anything less would arguably rise to ineffective assistance.  Perhaps he works in venues where the prosecution has been fastidious in its use of preemptory challenges.  If so, good for them.  The Prosecutors have a duty and they ought to comport themselves to that duty.  In the instant matter, with the questioning that went on, I have severe reservation that the Prosecutor was anything other than a person who indulged improper motives.  Frankly I find this case very disturbing.
Click to expand...
I practice predominantly in very white areas of a very white state. I think I'm around 50-60 jury trials now. I'm probably averaging less than an average of one black person per panel. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
To me, if defense counsel rises, says your Honor, may we approach, I would like to raise a Batson matter, and the judge dismisses the panel and the discussion ensues, I have no problem with that.  When defense counsel shouts out that they object as I am impermissibly preventing black jurors from being on the panel, and then the judge has to dismiss the panel and we have a protracted discussion, after which maybe I win or maybe I lose and the panel returns, having wondered about me and the allegation, well I do not like the implication.  No remediative instruction cures the stink in the air, it just draws more attention to the matter.

There is an allegation inherent to the challenge.  It is one of racial animus and professional wrongdoing.  Few here would like such an allegation leveled at them in any other context.  As I said, I understand it, I even support it, but I do wish it was always done so with a modicum of professional courtesy.  That is not always the case. 
Click to expand...
Jesus, who does that?  You make a Batson challenge at a break in voir dire or at the end.

 
Henry Ford said:
Jesus, who does that?  You make a Batson challenge at a break in voir dire or at the end.
Click to expand...
Yeah it worried me he even thought it'd be done that way. I, and i'm assuming most of my colleagues, view it much like a strike for cause.  I'd be worried about a possible bar complaint if I did it brazenly in front of a jury. 

 
Zow said:
We should probably now take this to the lawyer thread...
Click to expand...
Probably right.  Before we do it heartens me that both you and Henry would find that behavior unacceptable in members of the defense bar, so unacceptable that it shocks you that I have encountered it, and yet it was a frequent occurrence.

I will say this in closing, any prosecutor who abuses the preemptory challenges does so at their own puerile.  Jurors notice such matters.  If they think you are worried about such matters they judge you and hold it against you. Jurors of all races notice this.  Then, as you stand to make your opening they are thinking about your animus instead of your words.  As a Prosecutor you damn well better appear a fair minded minister of justice or you have done half of the defenses work, at least in my experience watching some who saw the matter differently than do I.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Did you hear or read his questions during the hearing?  He was definitely a dissenter from day 1.
Click to expand...
I think the questions were fine to establish a clear record, but the clear record includes also such a shocking disparity in the questioning of jurors of different races as to be, in my mind, impossible to ignore.  Now it maybe should not matter that this was a capital case, but I would say it is particularly important to not ignore that sort of disparity in a capital case. (this latter is not law, just my conscience or sense of morality bowing to practicalities)

 
Zow said:
Of course Thomas dissented. 
Click to expand...
I pasted a short quote in the scotus thread: 

“The majority’s opinion is so manifestly incorrect that I must proceed to the merits. ... the opinion distorts our legal standards, ignores the record, and reflects utter disrespect for the careful analysis of the Mississippi courts.  Any competent prosecutor would have exercised the same strikes as the State did in this trial.  And although the Court’s opinion might boost its self-esteem, it also needlessly prolongs the suffering of four victims’ families. I respectfully dissent."

He is strongly critical of Batson, clearly believes it is bad law. 

 
Madeleine Baran @madeleinebaran

BREAKING NEWS: The Mississippi Attorney General has just dropped the case against Curtis Flowers. After six trials and 23 years, the case against Curtis Flowers is finally over. We’ll have a special episode of @InTheDarkAPM out later today. #CurtisFlowers

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
9K
LawFitz
LawFitz
Righetti
The Greatest Mötley Crüe Songs Of All Time (And The Worst)
2
Replies
60
Views
2K
peaces
P
[icon]
"Anatomy of the Deep State" - Unsettling look at American Poli
Replies
1
Views
790
Slapdash
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top