On Point: 25. Jury

Clark v. Mississippi, USSC No. 25-6846, 6/8/2026, denying petition for certiorari; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

SCOTUS denied Tony Terrell Clark’s petition for a writ of certiorari from the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision affirming his conviction at a capital trial.  Clark argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel during jury selection because his trial lawyer did not adequately raise a Batson challenge when the State struck black jurors at a rate five times more than white jurors.  Justice Sotomayor joined the Court’s decision to deny certiorari because Clark did not argue his counsel’s performance was deficient, but explained in an accompanying statement why the Court needs to address the conflict among state and federal courts regarding the standard to evaluate prejudice for a Batson claim.

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.

State v. Elizabeth A. Erickson, 2025AP1150-CR, 4/22/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the defendant’s conviction for disorderly conduct and the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for postconviction relief alleging her counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s comments at trial that she did not tell police about a dog causing injuries to the victim.  The COA did not address whether the State’s comments violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination, but determined any error was harmless.

State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman,  2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although Zimmerman identifies a novel Fourth Amendment issue, COA ultimately uses Zimmerman’s consent to get around that issue and affirms.

State v. Tommy Jay Cross, 2023AP2013-CR, 11/4/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In an opinion that might remind some readers of their first year of law school, COA outlines the basic principles of Wisconsin’s self-defense doctrine and holds that the jury was given inaccurate instructions on the subject as it pertains to defense of others.

State of Wisconsin v. D.R.-R.D.J. 2024AP2406, 10/8/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In an imposingly lengthy opinion involving an interesting choice of counsel claim (among many others), COA rejects arguments that “Diane” was denied her rights to counsel of choice and to the effective assistance of counsel and affirms.

Michael Williams v. Michael Meisner, No. 23-3268, 6/16/25

In a case that likely signals the end of a long legal battle over a Wisconsin jury instruction telling jurors to “search for the truth,” the Seventh Circuit holds that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.

State v. Richard Leo Mathewson, 2022AP2124-CR, 6/17/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

COA holds that prospective juror’s equivocal answers during voir dire regarding bias against defendant charged with sexual assault of a child is not sufficient to overcome presumption that juror is impartial.

State v. Nicholas J. Bergner, 2024AP1875, District I, 6/3/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Nicolas Bergner’s postconviction motion for a new trial.  Although the circuit court did not follow the procedure required by SCOW in Tucker for using a numbers-only jury selection process, to which trial counsel did not object, Bergner was not prejudiced.

Leon Carter v. Lizzie Tiegels, No. 23-1266, 4/24/25

In a knotty habeas case, the complexities of habeas corpus law mean that Carter’s challenges to how COA handled his no-merit appeal and an underlying (and unique) claim of juror intrusion do not merit relief.