Emory Undergraduate Journal of Law & Society

Background

In 1996, a Black Mississippi man was involved in an armed robbery that resulted in the demise of multiple victims – three out of four of whom were White. Flowers was a former employee who had been terminated over issues with his attendance at work. Originally, he was held on suspicion of the death of a singular employee. However, over several years he was tried six times for a quadruple murder, and imprisoned for twenty-two years. When Flowers first appealed his conviction, the Mississippi Supreme Court dismissed his arguments regarding jury selection. The  Supreme Court, however, intervened, instructing the state court to revisit the case in light of its precedent in Foster v. Chatman, where it found evidence of intentional discrimination in jury selection in a capital case. Upon returning to the state supreme court, the ruling was once again upheld in favor of the state. Flowers, not giving up, appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to address whether the Mississippi Supreme Court had made an error in its application of the principles established in Batson v. Kentucky, a 1986 case concerning the use of peremptory challenges in jury selection.

Flower’s proceedings occurred throughout five separate trials. During jury selection for each, District Attorney Doug Evans struck close to 90% of the Black jurors. In the initial trial, all Black jurors were eliminated. In the second trial all Black jurors were struck except one, who was seated due to a motion from the trial court. All-encompassing, each of the six trials for Flowers included one or zero Black jurors. Eventually, this all-White jury sentenced Flowers to death. 

Utilizing the precedent set by Foster v. Chatman, the Supreme Court took up Flowers’s case to examine whether the Mississippi state supreme court had wrongfully ruled that there was no discriminatory intent in striking all Black jurors. In Foster v. Chatman, the defendant Timothy Foster, who was African American, was charged with the murder of a White woman in Georgia. During this jury selection, the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to strike all four prospective African-American jurors. Arguably, the more influential outcomes of this trial were the strengthening of the Batson Challenge and placing a stronger role on scrutiny in challenges to jury selection. The case reinforced and clarified the principles established in the Batson case, which prohibited racial discrimination in jury selection. It clarified that peremptory challenges could not be used to strike potential jurors based on race. It also made it clear that courts must closely scrutinize the reasons given by prosecutors when striking potential jurors using peremptory challenges. Within the findings of Foster v. Chatman: “The prosecution’s file revealed that the prosecution had highlighted the names of each of the four prospective Black jurors in green and written a letter “B” next to each name. In addition, the prosecution had circled the word “Black” next to the race question on the jury questionnaire forms. The prosecution further marked three of the jurors as “B#1,” “B#2,” and “B#3.” Finally, the notes contained additional information about the selection of each prospective Black juror.” [1] Historically, without evidence like this, it has been difficult to establish discriminatory purposes.

Court Opinions

In the opinion of the court, it was decided that the culmination of evidence as a result of all six trials showed deliberate error in concluding that the State’s peremptory strike of Black perspective juror Carolyn Wright was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. The court sought to enforce Batson in its interpretation and application of facts to the case. The judgment was reversed and remanded. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch authored the dissent. Believing that historically Mississippi errs on the side of race-neutral strikes and there was little to no strong evidence to suggest that the original claims of racial bias in jury selection were founded. Citing the links between some Black jurors and Flowers’s former workplace and family members as well as some opposition to the death penalty as the true reasons for jurors being stricken.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair trial and impartial jury, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition against racial discrimination. The decision in this case is expected to have implications for how criminal trials are conducted and whether improper behavior by prosecutors can result in the overturning of convictions. It is relevant to note that the neighborhood in which Flowers was convicted was over 50% Black. Despite this, the overwhelming majority of potential jurors being chosen did not represent this broader community. The important precedent set by Flowers v. Mississippi is not to determine whether Flowers was guilty of the crime. But rather, to bring awareness to the prevalence of racial bias within jury selection and how this can affect individuals who are innocent and convicted by a jury that is not representative of all their peers.

References

[1] Flowers v Mississippi (Supreme Court of the United States June 2019).