High Court Nixes Louisiana Death Sentence

Prosecutor Fashioned All-White Jury For Black Defendant; Called Trial His "O.J. Simpson Case"

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court threw out the death sentence and conviction in a Louisiana murder case Wednesday, citing racial prejudice in the actions of a prosecutor who called the murder trial his "O.J. Simpson case" and kept blacks off the jury.

By a 7-2 vote, the justices said state prosecutor Jim Williams improperly excluded blacks from the jury that convicted Allen Snyder of killing his estranged wife's companion. Snyder is black and the jurors were white.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the trial judge should have blocked Williams from striking a black juror. Alito's opinion made no mention of Simpson.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented. Thomas said he would not "second-guess" the judge.

During jury selection in the trial, Williams disqualified all five blacks in the pool of prospective jurors. The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that prosecutors may not exclude people from a jury solely because of their race. The court already had sent Snyder's case back to the Louisiana courts following a ruling in 2005 that bolstered the prohibition on race bias in jury selection.

The prosecutor's explanation for striking a prospective black juror was "suspicious," said Alito. The prospective juror's supervisor said he did not think a schedule conflict between the upcoming trial and the prospective juror's work would be a problem.

In contrast, the prosecutor accepted white jurors who disclosed conflicting obligations "that appear to have been at least as serious as" the prospective black juror who was excused, Alito wrote.

The trial took place in August 1996, less than a year after Simpson was acquitted of killing his ex-wife and a male friend of hers. Leading up to the trial, Williams made repeated public references to the Snyder case as his "O.J. Simpson case."

Snyder was convicted of first-degree murder in Jefferson Parish, just outside New Orleans. He was found guilty of repeatedly slashing his estranged wife, Mary Snyder, and a man, Harold Wilson, with a knife when he found them in a car outside her mother's home in August 1995. His wife survived, but Wilson died.

Adding to the Simpson comparison, Snyder told police just before his arrest that he was suicidal. Simpson, armed with a gun and apparently considering suicide, led police on a dramatic, televised chase before surrendering.

In a 4-3 decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that race had no part in the state's decisions involving black potential jurors.

When the case was argued in December, the justices were critical of the trial judge, Judge Kernan "Skip" Hand, for overruling many defense objections about the prosecutor's use of race and Simpson's name.

"Snyder v. Louisiana can’t be seen in a vacuum," said CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "The Supreme Court over the past half dozen years has had a devil of a time getting lower courts in the South - especially but not limited to Texas - to abide by their rulings in capital cases. That’s because the Justices have in recent years consistently, almost relentlessly, limited the ability of prosecutors and lower court judges to exclude blacks from serving as jurors to blacks in capital cases."

Stephen Bright, Snyder's Atlanta-based lawyer, said the ruling shows there is broad agreement among the justices that courts must closely examine the reasons given for excusing potential jurors when racial motives might be present but not acknowledged.

"The disturbing thing is that courts in Louisiana and elsewhere were just deferring to trial judges, no matter the reasons," Bright said.

Snyder will get a new trial as a result of the ruling, Bright said.

[brianbwb-2009]

To TheGateway1

In addition to my reply, I add that in cases where the death sentence is a real possibility, attorneys often make considerable effort to include "Black" jurors especially during the sentencing phase, because statistically "Black" jurors are less likely to pass the death sentence, especially if the case has extenuating circumstances that sre still not enough to escape conviction.

[brianbwb-2009]

"No, it''''s about the defense lawyers making him out to be a victim of racism." Posted by TheGateway1

Only because you say it is? It is clear that the SC doesn''t agree with you

"Why is it, if a black person is being tried for a crime, if no blacks are on the jury it can be overturned, but, if a white man is on trial, and there aren''t black people on the jury, the same thing can''t be said?" Posted by TheGateway1

You assume thus, and your assumption is, as usual fundamentally incorrect. The law gives a man, regardless of ethnic heritage, the right to a trial before a jury of his peers.

This means that a "White" man could conceivably successfully challenge a trial if he can prove that his peers include "Black" people, and there was sufficient evidence that "Black" people who qualified were excluded from the jury.

Your assumption is based on a quite transparent wish to legitimize discrimination, the law of the land, as written, forbids such.

[ranger1948]

thegateway1
It said he was being referred back for a new trial. Better to do it now than have it appealed years down the line for an inpropriety of law. Ris will be one less way he has to appeal his sentence.

[ranger1948]

brianbwb
Again i agree. While we disagree if we honor each others point of view and right to be different, thru intellectual exchanges maybe somethings might be improved. When the country learns to work together as one and not as separate groups then there is hope we may again be the greatest nation in the world. I personally think we are still the greatest though we are in a deep economic situation at this time.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by ranger1948

I find that while we may have points upon which we disagree, you are an honorable person, who posts in a polite manner, and engage in real and intelligent debate, I do have great respect for you.

I also think, given the opportunity, that you might find that we actually agree on quite a few areas, outside the topics on which we post, it is just that I find myself drawn to topics that are usually quite polarizing, and as far as our opposing views on some topics, I believe that yours, as mine, are based on different life experiences, rather than any lapse of logic.

[ranger1948]

I do noit see where the supreme court implied all whites are bigots anywhere in this case. Only that the trial was allowed to be held with illegal inproprieties. If you were white would you want a jury to beselected excluding whites because of their skin color ? Lets see justice prevail in a proper manner.

[CBSTV]

The votes and comments of Scalia and Thomas in this case undermine the credibility of these justices on any future death penalty questions.

[ranger1948]

brianbwb
Finally you and i do agree on a subject. The law must be upheld to the letter. The supreme court didn''t find him innocent. He is being sent back for a new trial. Let the evidence be opresented in a fair trial and if guilty then he should be sentensed

[brianbwb-2009]

"Regardless of the racial makeup of the jury, was there evidence to convict him? His wife survived being brutally slashed, did she testify against him? Does any of that matter?" Posted by rohink

While I understand your logic, the answer is no, it does not matter, it is not about guilt or innocence, it is about improper procedure. Notice the court did not say the man was not guilty, they simply said that the trial was illegally conducted.

If the Judiciary is not required to hold to the letter of the law it purports to enforce, then there is no law, and no need for a judiciary.

[brianbwb-2009]

"I espcially like the way the court pretty much comes out and says that all white people are predatory bigots who''''re thrilled to convict a black man (any black man) of a capital crime just because of the color of his skin. Who are the real racists in this story?"
Posted by Obfusc8tr

The lawyer who discriminated against potential jurors because they were "Black", the Judge who allowed it to happen, the High court judges who saw nothing wrong with it, and yourself. your sig is apropos, given your predilection to play semantics in order to justify the continuance of racism..

[obfusc8tr]

Nice work Supremes! I espcially like the way the court pretty much comes out and says that all white people are predatory bigots who''re thrilled to convict a black man (any black man) of a capital crime just because of the color of his skin. Who are the real racists in this story?

[rohink-2009]

Regardless of the racial makeup of the jury, was there evidence to convict him? His wife survived being brutally slashed, did she testify against him? Does any of that matter?

[excoachken]

Thomas and Scalia: They are the Curly and Larry and Bush is Moe.

[wireferee]

I agree with the other comments about Scalia and Thomas. They are quite worthless and so extreme that even Alito and Roberts didn''t vote with them.

Maedean, I strongly disagree with you. The racial make up of the jury makes a huge difference, especially in the South. When the jury is all white from a part of the country where racism is still prevelent (as was evidenced by Katrina), no black person could get a fair trial. Juries are supposed to be made up of the peers of the defendent. Our peers are the society at large. If there are 10% blacks in the community, then the jury should be 10% black. Especially when you have a prosecuter saying and doing the things he did pre-trial, it''s obvious an all-white jury would be biased. If Roberts and Alito can see that, so should you.

[kansas1946]

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented. Thomas said he would not "second-guess" the judge.
*************************
I always wondered about these two guys, but this clearly shows that their brains are not running on normal. America will have a day to celebrate when both of them are gone.

[tmn]

Scalia and Thomas are pretty much clueless as to their responsibilities and how to properly carry out those tasks. Simply moronic...

[whatithink-2009]

maedean,

You don''t know much about history or why laws and rules have come into place. I suggest you open your eyes. The kangaroo courts of the South, we don''t need again.

Emmitt Till case...

"Defense attorney John C. Whitten told the jurors in his closing statement, "Your fathers will turn over in their graves if [Milam and Bryant are found guilty] and I''m sure that every last Anglo-Saxon one of you has the courage to free these men in the face of that [outside] pressure.""

[maedean]

Wow what difference does it make what color the jury was. Once again we forget about the crime at hand here and the fact that this guy slashed another man to death. Were going to waste money getting this over turned over stupid racial bullshiiiit.This is sickning to have to listen to the poor black done wrong again over and over again.. Paint them white and make them pay for what they do. Whites have no get out of jail free cards......

[mcvet]

You have to wonder what makes people like these tic. What kind of people put up with a States Attorney like this one. Thomas and Scalia obviously do not know what the constitution provided them for. It''s the job of ALL Appellate courts to review and determine if the judgement of a trial judge is proper!! If they are there for that then why bother? Sieg Heil Bush

[stn_sage]

afmca - I tend to agree with you when you say Thomas & Scalia are the two most worthless judges on the court & that they should retire.

The article states, Thomas said he wouldn''t second-guess the judge! Who''s he trying to kid? The facts in the case are fairly self-evident! It really should have been a 9-0 decision! But at least the majority came to the correct conclusion!