SCOTUS to consider case of death-row inmate whose case was 'marred by racial overtones'
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case of a death-row inmate whose own defense expert testified he is statistically more likely to be dangerous in the future because he is black.
At issue is whether the inmate, Duane Buck, was entitled a Certificate of Appealability to press his procedurally defaulted claim that his trial lawyer was constitutionally ineffective. Buck was sentenced to death in Texas, where proof of future dangerousness is required for a death sentence. SCOTUSblog links to the cert petition (PDF). The Marshall Project published a preview of the case in April.
The expert had testified that race was among the statistical factors that determine whether a person will constitute a continued danger, with blacks and Hispanics more likely to be dangerous because they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, according to the cert petition. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked whether “race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons,” and the expert answered, “Yes.”
The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in Buck’s case in 2011 after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the prosecution could not be blamed because Buck’s trial counsel was responsible for putting the issue before the jury. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the cert denial in an opinion joined by Justice Elena Kagan. The case was “marred by racial overtones,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. countered with a statement defending the denial, because the expert had been hired by the defense. His statement was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer. (Since then Breyer has said he believes it is “highly likely” that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment.)
A year and a half after the cert denial, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that a death-row inmate may be able to raise an issue for the first time in a federal habeas appeal if his initial state habeas lawyer was ineffective. Buck contended the case entitled him to raise his ineffective counsel claim, even though his initial state habeas counsel did not raise the issue.
The 5th Circuit refused to allow Buck to raise the issue, ruling he had not made the threshold showing needed for the appeal. The cert petition claims the 5th Circuit used a standard that is “improper and unduly burdensome.”
Buck is represented from lawyers for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Texas Defender Service. The lawyers are seeking a new sentencing hearing for Buck.
“The 5th Circuit’s holding that Mr. Buck’s case was not sufficiently extraordinary to warrant review deepened skepticism of the integrity of the judicial system,” the lawyers said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision to accept Mr. Buck’s appeal is an important step toward restoring public confidence in the integrity of the courts.”
Buck was sentence to die in 1997 for the shooting deaths of his ex-girlfriend and her friend. The case is Buck v. Stephens.
Updated at 11:19 a.m. to correct typo in headline.
