Supreme Court Blocks Re-Trial for Texas Inmate
A ruling by a New Orleans based federal court appeals has prompted a U.S. Supreme Court decision to block a new trial for a Texas death row inmate.
AP reports show that a Feb. 22 Supreme Court ruling denies a new trial for Anthony Cardell Haynes, who was convicted in the shooting of a police officer in 1998. The report shows the New Orleans court was using a statue regarding the proper criteria for dismissing or excluding jurors. During the trial, the prosecution had excluded two jurors. Arguments for a retrial contend that the exclusions were based on race. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously found it unconstitutional to exclude jurors based on race.
The prosecution maintains that exclusions were based on the demeanor and activity of jurors during their service. Reports show that the issue came down to how the Supreme Court would interpret the juror exclusion and the burden of proof. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified in its Feb. 22 ruling that though it is unconstitutional to exclude jurors because of race, it is not the prosecution’s burden to prove that the exclusions were not based on the demeanor of the jurors.
Media coverage of this case shows the very detailed nature of the appeals and subsequent legal activity. The issue is a good example of how legal appeals can have a significant impact on municipal courts and legal parties. Opinions differ over whether the Supreme Court decision was meant to limit a defendant’s powers of appeal in a similar case. The practical result discourages this type of appeal process by narrowing the avenues for declaring a mistrial. Legal professionals involved in appeals will take notice of this and similar rulings by the highest court in the land.
Michael Monheit is the managing lawyer at Monheit Law, outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has practiced law since 1989. Michael Monheit was the managing attorney of the law offices of Herbert Monheit — now Silverman and Fodera — a firm... Michael Monheit→