SCOTUS grants habeas relief to death row inmate because trial court did not determine whether state’s proffered race-neutral bases for excluding potential black jurors were pretextual
Pitchford v. Cain, USSC No. 24-7351, 5/28/2026, reversing 126 F. 4th 422 (5th Cir. 2025); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
Batson v. Kentucky held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits prosecutors from exercising peremptory challenges based on race. A three-step process is used to implement Batson. First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that a peremptory strike was based on race. If the defendant meets this burden, the state must provide a race-neutral reason for the challenged strike. The defendant may then rebut the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason by showing it was pretextual.
SCOTUS held, in a 5-4 decision, that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson when it affirmed the defendant’s conviction for murder after the trial court did not address whether the prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for striking four of five potential black jurors were pretextual. The Court also found the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined the facts because it concluded the defendant waived his Batson challenge even though he was not provided an opportunity to rebut the state’s proffered race-neutral explanations and was later assured by the trial court that his Batson objection was preserved for the record.
Terry Pitchford was charged in Grenada County, Mississippi with capital murder in 2004 after the owner of a grocery store was shot during a robbery. Pitchford is black and the grocery store owner was white. Grenada County is sixty percent white and forty percent black.
During jury selection, the prosecutor used peremptory strikes against four of five potential black jurors. Defense counsel objected under Batson. The prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral explanations were that one potential juror returned fifteen minutes late to court after a break, two had brothers convicted of violent offenses, and the fourth shared characteristics similar to Pitchford because he was young, unmarried, and a father. The trial court determined each reason was race neutral and proceeded to the defendant’s peremptory strikes. The trial court did not provide defense counsel an opportunity to rebut the purported race-neutral reasons as pretextual nor make any findings whether the prosecutor’s explanations were pretextual. (Slip op. at 2-3).
After the jury was selected, defense counsel sought to raise the Batson issue again but was cut off by the trial court because the issue had been raised and was on the record. The jury consisted of eleven white jurors and one black juror; Pitchford was convicted and sentenced to death. (Slip op. at 3-4).
Pitchford filed a motion for a new trial in the trial court because the prosecutor’s stated race-neutral reasons for striking the potential black jurors were pretextual given that some of the whites who were not struck shared the same characteristics as the potential black jurors who were struck. The trial court denied the motion and Pitchford’s conviction was affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court, which concluded that he waived his Batson objection by not arguing in the trial court that the prosecutor’s proffered explanations were pretextual. (Slip op. at 4).
Pitchford sought federal habeas relief, which requires him to show the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court or was based on an unreasonable application of the facts in light of the evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), (2). The federal district court determined the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision unreasonably applied Batson because the trial court did not address whether the state’s alleged race-neutral bases for its strikes were pretextual and unreasonably determined that Pitchford waived his opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral reasons. (Slip op. at 5). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and concluded the Mississippi Supreme Court’s waiver finding was reasonable.
In a decision written by Justice Cavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, SCOTUS determined the trial court “erroneously omitted Batson’s third step: In particular, the trial court did not afford Pitchford’s counsel a sufficient opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral reasons for striking the four black jurors and never determined whether the prosecutor’s stated reasons were pretextual.” (Slip op. at 6). The Court observed that defense counsel attempted to object to the proffered race-neutral reasons and was assured by the trial court that the Batson objection was preserved: “Especially in light of the specific assurance by the trial court, it was unreasonable for the Mississippi Supreme Court to conclude that Pitchford waived the Batson argument.” (Slip op. at 7).
The Court rejected the state’s and dissent’s argument that defense counsel preserved a Batson objection, but not a Batson pretext argument, because “[t]hat slices Batson way too thin. At the key point in the jury-selection process – after the prosecutor had asserted facially race-neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes – the Batson objection was a Batson pretext argument. In other words, defense counsel’s rebuttal necessarily would include a pretext argument – specifically, that similarly situated white jurors were not challenged by the prosecutor.” (Slip op. at 7).
The dissent concluded the Mississippi Supreme Court did not unreasonably determine that Pitchford waived his Batson claim because he did not make his “comparative juror” argument until he was convicted and filed a motion for a new trial. (Slip op. at 7) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).