How Racial Bias in Jury Selection Chains Black Defendants

Explore the Supreme Court's ruling in Pitchford v. Cain, exposing the systemic racial bias in jury selection and the ongoing struggle for equal justice. How Racial Bias in Jury Selection Chains Black Defendants By Darius Spearman (africanelements) Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content. On May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a major decision in the case of Pitchford v. Cain (pbs.org). By a narrow 5-4 vote, the nation's highest court ruled in favor of Terry Pitchford, a Black man who spent almost twenty years on death row in Mississippi (pbs.org). The court found clear evidence of racial discrimination during the selection of his trial jury (cbsnews.com). State prosecutors had removed four out of five potential Black jurors, leaving a nearly all-white panel to decide his fate in a county where forty percent of the population is Black (pbs.org). This ruling did more than save one man from execution. It revived a federal judge's decision that had previously thrown out his conviction (cbsnews.com). More importantly, the decision shines a bright light on an ongoing crisis within the American legal system. For over a century, the struggle to keep Black citizens on juries has been an uphill battle. Although the Civil War ended legal slavery, many Southern states immediately designed new ways to keep Black people from exercising their basic civil rights (eji.org). These early efforts failed to secure real freedom, setting up a system where courtroom discrimination could flourish without consequences. The Long Journey to the Jury Box The right to a trial by a jury of one's peers is a cornerstone of American justice. However, for Black Americans, this right was denied for generations. Following the Reconstruction era, white Southern leaders worked hard to keep Black men out of the jury box. In the landmark 1880 case Strauder v. West Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that laws explicitly banning Black people from juries violated the Fourteenth Amendment (wikipedia.org). However, Southern states quickly found ways to get around this ruling. Instead of passing laws that openly banned Black jurors, states created discretionary barriers. They implemented poll taxes, literacy tests, and highly subjective character requirements (eji.org). These rules were designed to screen out Black citizens while allowing white citizens to serve. By keeping Black people off the voter registration rolls, states automatically kept them out of the jury pools (eji.org). This systematic exclusion of Black voices from the legal system severely limited the community's quest for political power and legal protection. As a result, Black defendants routinely faced all-white juries who held unchecked power over their lives. The Weapon of Peremptory Strikes In the twentieth century, prosecutors found a new tool to keep juries white: the peremptory strike. During jury selection, attorneys can use two types of challenges to remove potential jurors. A challenge for cause requires the attorney to prove to the judge that a juror is biased (azcourts.gov). A peremptory strike, however, allows an attorney to dismiss a juror for almost any reason, without giving any explanation at all (azcourts.gov). For decades, prosecutors used these strikes to systematically remove every single Black person from jury panels. The Supreme Court addressed this practice in the 1965 case Swain v. Alabama (justia.com). In that case, no Black person had served on a jury in Talladega County for over a decade (justia.com). Yet, the court set an incredibly high bar for proving discrimination. Under Swain, a defendant had to prove a systematic, long-standing pattern of racial exclusion across multiple cases over a long period of time, rather than just in their own trial (justia.com). This requirement made it almost impossible for individual defendants to challenge biased jury selection. To fix this injustice, the Supreme Court finally overturned Swain in the 1986 landmark case Batson v. Kentucky (nih.gov). The court ruled that prosecutors cannot use peremptory strikes to exclude jurors based on race (nih.gov). To enforce this, the court created a three-step process known as a Batson challenge (nih.gov). First, the defense must show that a strike may have been based on race (nih.gov). Second, the prosecutor must give a race-neutral reason for the strike (nih.gov). Third, the trial judge must decide if the prosecutor's stated reason is genuine or if it is just a cover for discrimination (nih.gov). The Three Steps of a Batson Challenge Step 1: The Prima Facie Case The defense must point out suspicious patterns of strikes against Black jurors to suggest race was the motivating factor. Step 2: The Race-Neutral Reason The prosecutor must offer a specific, non-racial explanation for each challenged strike, no matter how trivial it seems. Step 3: The Pretext Determination The trial judge evaluates all evidence to decide if the prosecutor's stated reason is genuine or merely a pretext for bias. The Pretext Loophole and the Batson Cheat Sheet Although the Batson decision brought hope, it quickly became clear that prosecutors could easily bypass the new rules. Across the country, prosecutors received training on how to create superficially race-neutral justifications for striking Black jurors. In Philadelphia, a highly controversial 1986 training video surfaced (apmreports.org). In the video, a prosecutor instructed trainees on how to ask specific questions to Black prospective jurors to gather excuse material (apmreports.org). This practice became known as using a Batson cheat sheet. Under this system, almost any reason could serve as a shield against a Batson challenge. Prosecutors regularly claimed that they struck Black jurors because they had a relative with a criminal history, lived in a high-crime neighborhood, or simply looked hostile (apmreports.org). Judges, who often deferred to prosecutors, rarely questioned these explanations. This loophole allowed prosecutors to maintain nearly all-white juries while technically obeying the law. This ongoing struggle shows the deep challenges the nation faces when confronting systemic inequalities in public institutions. The Dark Legacy of Prosecutor Doug Evans The case of Terry Pitchford is directly connected to one of the most notorious modern examples of jury discrimination. For over thirty years, Doug Evans served as the District Attorney for Mississippi’s Fifth Circuit Court District (apmreports.org). During his tenure, Evans gained national attention for his relentless prosecution of Curtis Flowers, a Black man accused of a 1996 quadruple murder (apmreports.org). Evans tried Flowers six separate times for the same crime (apmreports.org). In three of those trials, higher courts threw out the convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct, including unconstitutional jury selection (eji.org). In Flowers’ sixth trial, Evans struck five out of six potential Black jurors, leaving a jury with eleven white members and only one Black member (apmreports.org). The case eventually reached the Supreme Court in 2019 (supremecourt.gov). In a 7-2 ruling written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court overturned Flowers' conviction (supremecourt.gov). Kavanaugh wrote that Evans had shown a relentless effort to rid the jury of Black individuals (supremecourt.gov). The court ruled that a prosecutor’s historical pattern of racial bias must be considered when evaluating their strikes in a current trial (supremecourt.gov). Following this decision, Evans recused himself from the case and retired (apmreports.org). Doug Evans' Strike Rates (1992-2017) A comprehensive study revealed the extreme racial disparity in strikes by Evans' office. Eligible Black Jurors Struck 50% Eligible White Jurors Struck 11% Note: Prosecutors under Evans were 4.4 times more likely to strike Black prospective jurors (apmreports.org). Terry Pitchford and the Grenada County Trial The case of Terry Pitchford is directly connected to this history. In 2004, Pitchford, who was then eighteen, and a sixteen-year-old co-defendant attempted to rob a grocery store in Grenada County (cbsnews.com). During the robbery, the co-defendant shot and killed the store's white owner (cbsnews.com). Because the co-defendant was a minor, he was ineligible for the death penalty and received a twenty-year sentence (cbsnews.com, deathpenaltyinfo.org). Pitchford, however, was charged as an accomplice to capital murder, and the state sought the death penalty (cbsnews.com). The trial took place in 2006 (pbs.org). The prosecutor was Doug Evans, and the trial judge was Joseph Loper, the very same judge who oversaw Flowers’ final trials (pbs.org). Much like in the Flowers case, Evans used his peremptory strikes to eliminate four of the five eligible Black prospective jurors (pbs.org). When Pitchford’s attorneys raised a Batson challenge, Evans provided several quick excuses (pbs.org). He claimed one juror was late, others had relatives with criminal records, and another was a young father like Pitchford (pbs.org). Instead of giving Pitchford’s lawyers a chance to argue that these reasons were fake, Judge Loper immediately accepted Evans’ explanations and seated the jury (pbs.org). On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that Pitchford had waived his right to challenge the strikes (supremecourt.gov). They argued his lawyers did not dispute the excuses at the exact moment the judge made his ruling (supremecourt.gov). The Conflict Over Habeas Corpus and Waiver This procedural technicality became the main battleground in the federal courts. Under state rules, a defendant can lose their right to appeal if their attorney does not make an immediate objection (azcourts.gov). This is known as the contemporaneous objection rule (azcourts.gov). The state of Mississippi used this rule to argue that Pitchford’s case should never be reviewed by federal judges (supremecourt.gov). However, federal courts have the power to review state convictions through a writ of habeas corpus (pbs.org). This power is often a subject of intense debate, as state governments frequently clash with federal authorities over legal boundaries (govinfo.gov). This ongoing tension is a key part of the wider struggle over federalism and the rights of citizens. Under federal law, judges must show deference to state courts unless the state court’s decision was completely unreasonable (govinfo.gov). In Pitchford's case, a federal district judge ruled that the Mississippi court had indeed acted unreasonably by ignoring the clear breakdown in the Batson process (pbs.org). The Supreme Court Rules on Pitchford v. Cain In the 5-4 decision on May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court flatly rejected Mississippi's waiver argument (pbs.org). Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, explained that the trial court's procedure had completely broken down (pbs.org). He noted that the judge's rushed actions prevented the defense from completing the third and most crucial step of the Batson inquiry (pbs.org, supremecourt.gov). Justice Kavanaugh wrote that whether due to confusion, oversight, or an overly hurried jury selection process, the trial court failed to allow the defense to prove that the prosecutor's excuses were pretextual (supremecourt.gov). By denying the defense this opportunity, the trial court violated Pitchford's constitutional rights (pbs.org). The majority ruled that upholding the integrity of the Fourteenth Amendment requires strict adherence to these safeguards, regardless of state procedural rules (pbs.org). Supreme Court Vote Split (5-4) The division in Pitchford v. Cain highlighted the conflict over federal oversight. MAJORITY (5) B. Kavanaugh J. Roberts K.B. Jackson S. Sotomayor E. Kagan DISSENT (4) C. Thomas S. Alito N. Gorsuch A.C. Barrett What Happens Next for Terry Pitchford? Following this high court decision, Terry Pitchford is no longer under an active death sentence (pbs.org). The Supreme Court's ruling officially threw out his capital murder conviction (pbs.org). Reverting to the status of an unconvicted defendant, Pitchford's future now rests in the hands of the state of Mississippi (pbs.org). State prosecutors must decide whether they will release him or attempt to try him again (pbs.org). If the state decides to pursue a new trial, they must select a new jury under strict oversight to prevent further racial discrimination (pbs.org). This case stands as a powerful reminder that the battle for equal justice in the courtroom is far from over. It proves that while laws against discrimination have been on the books for decades, constant vigilance is required to make those promises a reality for Black defendants across the nation. About the Author Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.