Flowers v. Mississippi (17-9572)

argument 17-9572

Flowers v. Mississippi

Supreme Court of the United States 54 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court hearing in Flowers v. Mississippi?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case seventeen ninety five seventy two Flowers versus Mississippi. Ms. Johnson.

Kannon K. Shanmugam 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The only plausible interpretation of all of the evidence viewed cumulatively is that Doug Evans began jury selection in Flowers Six with an unconstitutional end in mind to seat as few African American jurors as he could. The numbers alone are striking. In the first four trials, Mr. Evans exercised thirty-six peremptory challenges, all of them against African American jurors. In the sixth trial, He exercised five out of six of his challenges against African American jurors. If we look at the numbers of his regarding uh his questioning, they are likewise star. He asked of the struck African American jurors an average of twenty nine questions. He asked of the seated white jurors an average of one point one questions.

Kannon K. Shanmugam 1:13

But these numbers do not stand alone. Mr. Evans was twice found to have discriminated on the basis of race in the exercise of a pr his peremptory challenges against African American defendants in trials of the same case against the same defendant. There is no one. who has a record of discrimination, adjudicated discrimination, like that of Mr. A.

Samuel A. Alito 1:43

The history of the case prior to this trial is very troubling, and you've summarized that uh and it it is it is cause for concern and is certainly relevant to the decision that ultimately has to be made in the case. But if we were I'm not suggesting that this is the way it should be analyzed, this is not the way it should be analyzed, but if we were to disregard everything that happened before this trial and we looked at the strikes of the black prospective jurors as we would in any other bats in case. Do you think you'd have much chance of winning?

Kannon K. Shanmugam 2:21

The evidence still is clear and convincing that Mr. Evans acted with discriminatory motivation in this case, even if we set aside his history and and his the the reasons that he was unwilling to tell the truth in previous

Samuel A. Alito 2:36

if we look at at the jurors in question one by one. There are aspects that I think would cause any prosecutor anywhere. to want to get that jury that juror off the jury. You there's a juror who said that uh she she couldn't view the evidence objectively. She couldn't make a decision based just on the evidence. There's one who said that she, because of her acquaintance with members of the Flowers family, she would lean toward the defendant. Another one who admitted that she made a false statement on her juror questionnaire because she'd say anything to get off the jury. And do you think those are those are bats and claims that would likely succeed if this troubling history had not preceded this case?

Kannon K. Shanmugam 3:27

This court has demanded a sensitive inquiry into all of the circumstances that uh prove racial discrimination and again even setting aside his history. There are many circumstances here that suggest radom racial motivation. First, as I already said, there is an extraordinary record of disparate questioning. And the disparate questioning is not limited to those numbers, but to the tone of his questioning. I believe that one of the responses that you quoted came from an extremely aggressive pursuit of an African-American juror. Who initially said she would not be troubled and ultimately said it's possible. Now, of course, our prosecutor could take that approach with every juror. If he took that aggressive approach with every juror, then there would be nothing to complain about.

Kannon K. Shanmugam 4:17

But he did not take that approach with white jurors. And then there is his out-of-court investigation of three African-American jurors. And then there are

Samuel A. Alito 4:26

Well what what's wrong with that? Um again, putting aside uh the reasons to be suspicious, if a juror says, I don't I didn't work I don't work closely with the defendant's sister, I don't work close to the defendant's sister, and the prosecutor has reason to suspect that's not true, is there something wrong with the prosecutor going to the human relations person at that place of employment and bringing that person in to testify they actually work nine to ten inches apart.