Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
EX PARTE Jamal O'Neal JACKSON (IN RE: Jamal O'Neal Jackson v. State of Alabama)
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
We are being asked in this petition for certiorari review to allow briefing on several issues related to Jamal O'Neal Jackson's capital-murder conviction and death sentence.1 I believe that briefing is warranted with respect to only one issue, which is presented in Part IV of Jackson's petition.
In Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005), the United States Supreme Court granted relief to a petitioner who claimed that the State violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), in his capital trial by using its peremptory strikes to remove black veniremembers based on their race. Among the evidence supporting a finding of discrimination in that case was the fact that “[o]nly 6% of white venire panelists, but 53% of those who were black,” were questioned about their feelings on the death penalty using the so-called “graphic script,” which described the method of execution in rhetorical and clinical detail, as opposed to the more generic description used with other veniremembers that omitted such details. 545 U.S. at 256, 125 S.Ct. at 2334. The United States Supreme Court provided this example of the graphic script used by the prosecution in Miller-El:
“I feel like you have a right to know right up front what our position is. Mr. Kinne, Mr. Macaluso and myself, representing the people of Dallas County and the state of Texas, are actively seeking the death penalty for Thomas Joe Miller–El ․
“We do that with the anticipation that, when the death penalty is assessed, at some point Mr. Thomas Joe Miller–El--the man sitting right down there-will be taken to Huntsville and will be put on death row and at some point taken to the death house and placed on a gurney and injected with a lethal substance until he is dead as a result of the proceedings that we have in this court on this case. So that's basically our position going into this thing.”
545 U.S. at 256, 125 S.Ct. at 2334. Miller-El argued that those questions were designed to elicit plausibly neutral grounds for peremptory strikes of black veniremembers. 545 U.S. at 255, 125 S.Ct. at 2333.
In his petition, Jackson cites to the record in this case and claims that only 3% of white veniremembers, but 44% of black veniremembers, were questioned about their feelings on the death penalty from a voir dire script that echoed the one used in Miller-El. When questioning these potential jurors, the prosecution referred to the death penalty as a process where a defendant is “strapped down to a gurney” and “a needle gets put in [the defendant's arm] and then they are injected with drugs that stop their heart.” Of the 15 veniremembers questioned in this way, 8 were removed for cause (7 of whom were black), with the remaining 7 removed by peremptory strikes (6 of whom were black). Jackson contends that this result supports an inference of racial discrimination.
Given that the voir dire in Jackson's trial apparently paralleled the voir dire in Miller-El in this respect, and given that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not discuss Miller-El in reaching its conclusion below that the record “contain[ed] no indication that the State engaged in disparate or desultory questioning of jurors,” Jackson v. State, [Ms. CR-16-1039, Sept. 20, 2019] 303 So. 3d 846, –––– (Ala. Crim. App. 2019), I would allow briefing on the issue of whether Jackson's case should be remanded for a Batson hearing based on disparate questioning of black and white veniremembers. In doing so, I would also request briefing on the proper standard of appellate review for Batson claims not raised at trial. See Ex parte Phillips, 287 So. 3d 1179, 1243 (Ala. 2018) (Stuart, C.J., joined by Main and Wise, JJ., concurring specially) (“For the reasons set forth above, I would overrule Ex parte Bankhead[, 585 So. 2d 112 (Ala. 1991),] and its progeny in this regard and now hold that failure to make a timely objection forfeits consideration under a plain-error standard of a Batson objection raised for the first time on appeal.”), and 287 So. 3d at 1255 (Sellers, J., concurring specially) (“I also concur with Chief Justice Stuart's discussion of the Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), issue ․”).
FOOTNOTES
1. Regarding this Court's issuance of the writ of certiorari, it has been stated:“[T]his Court's issuance of the writ of certiorari does not indicate any definitive disposition on the merits; rather the writ simply requires the clerk of the appropriate court of appeals, in this case the Court of Criminal Appeals, to transmit the full record in the case to the clerk of this Court, and allows the respondent to file a brief, the petitioner to file a brief in response to the respondent's brief, and the respondent to file a subsequent reply brief.”Nelson v. State, 866 So. 2d 599, 602 n.1 (Ala. 2003) (Harwood, J., dissenting).
SELLERS, Justice.
Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur. Parker, C.J., and Mitchell, J., dissent.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1190138
Decided: February 28, 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)