Snyder v. Louisiana
Snyder was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in Louisiana state court. Snyder appealed, claiming that his constitutional right to a jury of his peers was violated when the prosecutor peremptorily struck the five remaining African-American jurors from the venire, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky . On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed Snyder ’s conviction and sentence. Snyder appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which remanded the case, directing the Louisiana Supreme Court to review defendant’s Batson claims in light of Miller-El v. Dretke, which upheld a Batson claim when the prosecutor struck 10 of 11 African-American jurors from the venire. After reviewing Snyder ’s Batson complaints, the Louisiana Supreme Court reaffirmed Synder's conviction and sentence, finding that the trial court did not err in determining the venire persons were not excused by the State in a racially discriminatory manner.
Question Presented:
Petitioner Allen Snyder, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death by an
all-white jury in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, for the fatal stabbing of his wife’s male
companion. Prior to trial, the prosecutor reported to the media that this was his “O.J.
Simpson case.” At trial, the prosecutor peremptorily struck all five African
Americans who had survived cause challenges and then, over objection, urged the
resulting all-white jury to impose death because this case was like the O.J. Simpson
case, where the defendant “got away with it.” On initial review, a majority of the
Louisiana Supreme Court ignored probative evidence of discriminatory intent,
including the prosecutor’s O.J. Simpson remarks and argument, and denied Mr.
Snyder’s Batson claims by a 5-2 vote.
This Court directed the court below to reconsider Mr. Snyder’s Batson claims in light
of Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005). See Snyder v. Louisiana, 545 U.S. 1137
(2005). On remand, a bare majority adhered to its prior holding, once again
disregarding substantial evidence establishing discriminatory intent, including the
prosecutor’s references to the O.J. Simpson case, the totality of strikes against
African-American jurors, and evidence showing a pattern of practice of race-based peremptory challenges by the prosecutor’s office. In addition, the majority imposed
a new and higher burden on Mr. Snyder, asserting that Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S.
333 (2006), permitted reversal only if “a reasonable fact finder [would] necessarily
conclude the prosecutor lied” about the reasons for his strikes. Three justices,
including the author of the original opinion, dissented, finding the prosecutor’s
reference to the O.J. Simpson case in argument to an all-white jury, made “against
a backdrop of the issues of race and prejudice,” supported the conclusion that the
State improperly exercised peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory fashion.
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s consideration of Mr. Snyder’s Batson claims on
remand from this Court raises the following important questions:
of peremptory challenges to purge all African Americans from the jury, the prosecutor’s disparate questioning of white and black prospective jurors, and documented evidence of a pattern of practice by the prosecutor’s office to dilute
minority presence in petit juries?
2. Did the majority err when, in order to shore up its holding that Mr. Snyder had failed to prove discriminatory intent, it imported into a direct appeal case the standard of review this Court applied in Rice v. Collins, an AEDPA habeas case?
3. Did the majority err in refusing to consider the prosecutor’s first two suspicious
strikes on the ground that defense counsel’s failure to object could not constitute
ineffective assistance of counsel because Batson error does not render the trial
unfair or the verdict suspect —- i.e., that failure to raise a Batson objection can
never result in prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) — a
holding directly conflicting with decisions from inter alia the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals and the Alabama and Mississippi Supreme Courts?
