The Eleventh Circuit Board [Habeas Ed.]

[By Emily Gilbert and Kelyn Smith]

Our eyes do not deceive us! In Sockwell v. Comm’r, Ala. Dept. of Corr., the Eleventh Circuit has reversed (for now) a habeas denial — in a death penalty case (!) — after finding the lower court unreasonably applied the rule in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), considering ample evidence a prosecutor used a peremptory strike in a racially discriminatory manner. 

Brief facts: Sockwell, a Black man, was tried and convicted of a 1988 shooting-for-hire of a Montgomery, AL sheriff. At Sockwell’s 1990 trial, the prosecutor struck 7 of 32 qualified white jurors and 8 of 10 qualified Black jurors (one of the disqualified Black jurors, Davis, became the subject of Sockwell’s appeals). The trial court denied a Batson challenge after the prosecutor gave the following reasons for the strike: (1) the juror is a Black male, about the same age and sex of the defendant, (2) the juror was vague in his answer about pretrial publicity, (3) the juror was vague about his death penalty views.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, the Alabama Supreme Court, and the Middle District of Alabama all held that the prosecutor had not engaged in purposeful discrimination.

But miracles never cease, and the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Sockwell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, saying “no reasonable and fair-minded jurist could have considered ‘all relevant circumstances’ and still found no Batson violation.” The majority focused on the following factors:

• The prosecutor’s history of violating Batson at least 4 times;

• The statistical difference between the state’s white (22%) and Black (80%) juror strikes;

• The fact that Davis gave remarkably similar answers to pretrial publicity questions as many white jurors the state did not attempt to strike, essentially: “I heard others discussing news articles about the case months before the trial”;

• The direct comparison of Davis’ and Sockwell’s race, sex, and age shows the prosecutor’s motivation to strike Davis for an unconstitutional reason.

So, the hot tip takeaway is — if you’re a prosecutor with four previous Batson violations defending another one, the first thing out of your mouth probably shouldn’t be a side-by-side comparison of the juror’s and defendant’s demographic data.

Definitely raise a glass to this one but also brace for the possibility of Sockwell: The En Banc Sequel.