WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a claim brought by a Black Texas death row inmate who said he did not receive a fair trial for the killings of his white wife and two children – crimes he does not deny committing – because three white jurors in his first trial expressed opposition to interracial marriage.
Over a dissent by its three liberal justices, the court turned away an appeal by Andre Thomas, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2004 killings. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
“No jury deciding whether to recommend a death sentence should be tainted by potential racial biases that could infect its deliberations or decision, particularly where the case involved an interracial crime,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The decision left in place a lower court’s ruling rejecting arguments by his current lawyers that Thomas did not receive a fair trial and that his previous legal team did not competently represent him as required by the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment. The original legal team argued at trial he was not guilty by reason of insanity.
Thomas has suffered from severe mental health issues and is blind after gouging out both of his eyes. He was sentenced to death by the all-white jury for the killings in the Texas city of Sherman of his estranged wife Laura Boren, their son, Andre Jr., and her other child by a different father, Leyha Hughes.
Thomas, believing the victims had been possessed by demons, stabbed all three to death and attempted to cut out their hearts, according to legal records. He then attempted suicide before turning himself in and confessing to police, according to legal records.
During his trial for the murder of Leyha Hughes, his lawyers argued that Thomas was suffering from acute psychosis prompted by a lifetime of mental health issues including schizophrenia. Texas argued that the psychosis was temporary and “voluntary” because of his drug use.
During jury selection for that trial, prospective jurors were asked about their views on interracial marriage, with three who eventually were included on the panel marking a box saying they opposed it.
“I don’t believe God intended for this,” one said.
Another said that “we should stay with our Blood Line.” A third said that interracial marriage is “harmful for the children involved.”
His lawyers at the trial did not seek to remove the jurors at the time, as is permitted.
“As a result, Thomas was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury that included three jurors who expressed bias against him,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.
Maurie Levin, a lawyer representing Thomas, noted that the Supreme Court in a 2017 ruling made clear that it has a duty to “confront racial animus in the justice system.” Tuesday’s action, Levin said, “has exposed the emptiness of that promise.”
In the trial’s sentencing phase, the prosecutor – urging the jury to impose a death sentence instead of a life sentence with the possibility of parole – asked jurors: “Are you going to take the risk about him asking your daughter out, or your granddaughter out?”
State courts rejected his post-conviction claims, prompting Thomas to turn to federal courts, which also ruled against him, most recently the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year.
Texas has argued that Thomas missed his chance to make a claim challenging the trial’s fairness. Texas also has argued that there was no evidence that jurors were unable to render impartial judgment or that his lawyers should be faulted for making strategic decisions at trial. The lawyers, the state has said, were able to remove jurors from the jury pool who they thought might have been worse for their client.
Thomas gouged out one of his eyes before the trial. In 2008, while on death row, he did so with the other one.
(Reporting by Reuters Washington bureau; Editing by Will Dunham)
