Curtis Flowers faces a death sentence in Mississippi after six different trials, and now the Supreme Court will hear a challenge on the verdict in the sixth trial—a challenge that could set new precedent on racial discrimination in jury selection. Flowers is currently convicted of a 1996 murder, but three different convictions have already been struck down by state courts, while two trials resulted in hung juries. The conviction in the sixth trial came after District Attorney Doug Evans struck five black people from the jury … after Flowers’ third conviction was overturned because Evans had excluded 15 black people from the jury.
In fact, “Evans has removed black jurors at 4.5 times the rate that he struck white jurors, according to an ‘In the Dark’ analysis of 6,700 jurors in 225 trials over 26 years.” In other words, he is a racist prosecutor who’s been getting away with using unconstitutional means to keep black people off of juries.
But will the Trump Supreme Court use this case to crack down on racially biased prosecutions, or will it use this case to give prosecutors free rein to assemble white juries to convict black people despite weak evidence? A separate challenge to Flowers’ conviction, by the way, focuses on the weak evidence used against him, including a jailhouse informant’s recantation of a claim that Flowers confessed to him. That’s the sort of thing a prosecutor can use a carefully chosen jury to get around, if the court allows those careful (racist) choices.