USA; CORTE SUPREMA APPOGGIA ACCUSE RAZZISMO TEXAS

DETENUTO NERO AVRA' POSSIBILITA' SOSTENERE DISCRIMINAZIONE

NEW YORK, 25 FEB - La Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti ha dato il proprio appoggio alla battaglia giudiziaria di un condannato a morte del Texas, che sostiene di essere stato giudicato da una giuria selezionata sulla base di criteri razzisti.

   Con una sentenza votata a stragrande maggioranza, 8 contro 1, il massimo organismo giudiziario degli Usa ha mandato un altro segnale forte della propria volonta' di eliminare le possibili ingiustizie nel sistema delle esecuzioni.

   Un anno fa, la Corte suprema aveva sospeso l'esecuzione di Thomas Miller-El, un nero di 51 anni che il giorno dopo sarebbe dovuto morire nel carcere di Huntsville, in Texas, per un'iniezione letale. Miller-El e' stato condannato a morte nel 1986 per l'uccisione un anno prima di un portiere d'albergo (bianco) durante una rapina a Dallas.

   Adesso i giudici supremi, pronunciandosi ancora sul caso di Miller-El, hanno riconosciuto che il detenuto ha presentato prove sufficienti per aver diritto ad un giudizio d'appello nel quale venga esaminata la correttezza della sua condanna.

I difensori di Miller-El sostengono che i procuratori, all'epoca del processo, usarono i loro poteri per eliminare qualsiasi giurato nero dalla giuria che condanno' il killer, ricorrendo a metodi razzisti che -a loro avviso- erano tipici soprattutto in quel periodo in Texas. I procuratori ottennero di far scartare 10 degli 11 potenziali giurati neri e alla fine nessun afro-americano prese posto nella giuria.

L'unico tra i giudici della Corte Suprema a dissentire sulla decisione a favore di Miller-El e' stato Clarence Thomas, che e' anche l'unico giudice nero tra i nove della Corte di Washington.

A suo avviso, il detenuto non ha portato prove sufficienti per dimostrare che c'e' stata una discriminazione razziale.  

Justices Stress Inmate's Right to Press Appeal

February 26, 2003

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, - The Supreme Court ordered a new hearing for a Texas death row inmate today in a surprisingly broad 8-to-1 decision that warned the federal courts of appeals against shutting the door prematurely on state prisoners who seek to present constitutional challenges to their convictions or sentences. 

The court said that to gain a hearing, an inmate appealing a denial of habeas corpus need not present a winning case, but only a plausible one. The decision could have a substantial effect, reopening federal courthouse doors that some appellate judges have closed through stringent

interpretations of new limits on habeas corpus review that Congress adopted in 1996.

 In an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Supreme Court sharply criticized both the Texas courts and the lower federal courts for ignoring strong evidence of racial bias in the selection of the nearly all-white jury that found a black Texas man, Thomas Miller-El, guilty of murder 17 years ago.

 Without resolving the merits of Mr. Miller-El's discrimination case, the majority said today that in appealing the denial of his habeas corpus petition, he had presented evidence of bias substantial enough to entitle him to a hearing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit misapplied both the facts and the law in refusing to permit the appeal, the justices said.

 The lone dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas, who said Mr. Miller-El had not met even the relatively low threshold that the majority emphasized today. "The simple truth" is that proof of racial bias is circumstantial at best, lacking "anything remotely resembling clear and convincing evidence of purposeful discrimination," Justice Thomas said.

 The majority opinion instructed the appeals court, based in New Orleans, to grant Mr. Miller-El the "certificate of appealability" necessary for him to present to that court his constitutional challenge to the composition of his jury. The prosecution had used its peremptory strikes to remove 10 of 11 black potential jurors.

 While not resolving Mr. Miller-El's particular case, the justices today did something with potentially greater systemwide effect in warning the federal appeals courts not to abdicate their responsibility to scrutinize state-court criminal proceedings for constitutional error.

 Justice Kennedy said that while it was true that Congress had rewritten the habeas corpus statute to require greater deference by federal judges to state-court determinations, "deference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review."

 "Deference," he added, "does not by definition preclude relief."

 As a formal legal matter, the case framed and answered a single technical question: How are the federal appeals courts to exercise the gatekeeping function that Congress gave them in the 1996 law, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act?

 The purpose of that law was to streamline the federal courts' handling of habeas corpus petitions, which are challenges to the constitutionality of a conviction or sentence. Under the 1996 law, an inmate whose habeas corpus petition fails in a federal district court cannot move up the appellate ladder without a "certificate of appealability."

In a 2000 decision interpreting that prerequisite, Slack v. McDaniel, the Supreme Court set a rather low threshold for inmates to meet. They need only demonstrate, the court said then, that the district court disposed of a substantial constitutional claim in a manner that was open to disagreement among reasonable judges. In other words, in order to be eligible to appeal, an inmate had to present not necessarily a winning case but simply one that was

arguably plausible.

 The practice of the Fifth Circuit, however, along with some other federal appellate circuits, has been to collapse into a single inquiry the appealability issue and the actual merits of the appeal. That was what happened in Mr. Miller-El's case, and that was the error that the justices used his case to correct today.

 In denying the certificate of appealability in August 2001, the appeals court said Mr. Miller-El had failed to demonstrate that the Texas courts' earlier rejection of his appeal was both unreasonable and "contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court." But that test is intended for the ultimate determination of a habeas corpus petition's merits, not for the appealability stage, Justice Kennedy said in his opinion, Miller-El v. Cockrell, No. 01-7662.

 He said the certificate of appealability determination "is a separate proceeding, one distinct from the underlying merits."

 Referring to the certificate by its initials, C.O.A., Justice Kennedy continued: "The court of appeals should have inquired whether a `substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right' had been proved. Deciding the substance of an appeal in what should only be a threshold inquiry undermines the concept of a C.O.A. The question is the debatability of the underlying constitutional claim, not the resolution of that debate."

 Lawyers who specialize in habeas corpus and the death penalty said the result of the decision would almost certainly be to grant more hearings to state inmates, both on and off death row. The court's holding was not limited to death penalty cases, but could prove particularly significant in that context, said Diann Rust-Tierney, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Capital Punishment Project.

 "This needed to happen," Ms. Rust-Tierney said. "It's a reminder that for the system to have any integrity, courts have to get to the merits of these claims."

 The Fifth Circuit's handling of habeas corpus cases has been of great concern to those with qualms about the death penalty because that circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, oversees the most active death row in the country. From 1992 to 2002, Texas alone carried out 247 executions, accounting for 37 percent of all executions in the country; 8 of the 12 executions so far in 2003 have been in Texas. Nearly every execution is preceded by an effort to obtain habeas corpus review in the federal courts.

 Eric M. Freedman, a habeas corpus expert at Hofstra University Law School, said today that an inmate's ability to get a hearing on the merits of a habeas corpus petition was "absolutely critical." Professor Freedman called the decision "a very welcome reaffirmation of the importance of independent federal scrutiny of the underlying facts before coming to a legal conclusion," and added: "The message has to be, Judging is what judges are paid to do."

 The majority opinion examined at length the evidence of racial bias that Mr. Miller-El, who was convicted of killing a Dallas hotel clerk during a robbery, had tried to present.

 Criticizing the appeals court's interpretation of the evidence as "dismissive and strained," Justice Kennedy said Mr. Miller-El had clearly shown that the evidence of bias was at least debatable. Not only did the prosecution remove most black prospective jurors, but black members of the panel were subjected to more searching questioning on their views of the death penalty in what Justice Kennedy said could fairly be seen as an effort to build a record justifying their removal.

 In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said he regarded the case as "a close rather than a clear" one for granting the certificate of appealability.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Texas Inmate Claiming Racial Bias

     The Supreme Court has issued an 8-1 decision in favor of Thomas Miller-El, a Texas death row inmate who claims that Dallas County prosecutors engaged in racially biased jury selection at the time of his trial in 1986. The Court ruled in Miller-El v. Cockrell that Miller-El should have been given an opportunity to present evidence of racial bias during his federal appeal. The Court sent the case back to a lower court, where Miller-El could be granted a new hearing on his claims. "Irrespective of whether the evidence could prove sufficient to support a charge of systematic exclusion of African-Americans, it reveals that the culture of the district attorney's office in the past was suffused with bias against African-Americans in jury selections," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. (Associated Press, February 25, 2003)

      The decision comes as a another Texas death row inmate is filing a final appeal based, in part, on similar claims of racial bias. Texas is scheduled to execute African-American Delma Banks on March 12, 2003 for the 1980 murder of Richard Whitehead, a white male. During jury selection, prosecutors - who had an established reputation for using race-coded materials during jury selection and for striking the vast majority of potential black jurors - struck four black prospective jurors, thereby assuring an all-white jury. Attorneys for Banks assert that, in addition to the state's demonstrated pattern of racial bias and the failure of Banks' trial attorney to provide an adequate defense, the underlying case against their client depends upon the  testimony of two unreliable witnesses who have since recanted their testimony. These errors led a U.S. District Court to order a new sentencing hearing for Banks, who maintains his innocence, but that decision was overturned by the Fifth Circuit. Banks is now seeking relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justices tell court to rehear bias case

The U.S. Supreme Court sided Tuesday with a black death row inmate who claimed Dallas County prosecutors stacked his jury with whites and that he was not allowed to present evidence of the alleged bias.

 The high court ruled 8-1 that Thomas Miller-El should have been given an opportunity to present his evidence during his federal appeals.

 The court's action does not mean Miller-El will ultimately win his case. The justices sent the case back to a federal appeals court, where Miller-El could get a new hearing on his claims that prosecutors used their power to challenge specific jurors as a way to eliminate 10 out of 11 potential black jurors before Miller-El's trial.

 Miller-El, 51, was convicted of capital murder for the 1985 slaying of clerk Douglas Walker at the Holiday Inn-South in Irving. Miller-El was unsuccessful in having his charge of racial discrimination addressed during his state appeals, but his legal team resurrected the issue during the federal appeals process.

 One of his attorneys, Jim Marcus of the Texas Defender Service in Houston, said he was pleased with the ruling, which means the case will be sent back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

 Marcus said he called Death Row on Tuesday to share the news with Miller-El, whose execution has been scheduled numerous times since his conviction.

 "I think that the record in this case is clear that regardless of what's happening today in the Dallas County district attorney's office, at the time Thomas' case was tried and prior to that time there was a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in the selection of the jury," Marcus said.

 The high court said it gave some weight to historical evidence uncovered by Miller-El's attorneys after his conviction. Among other things, Miller-El's attorneys said that the Dallas district attorney's office once specifically trained prosecutors to get rid of minority juror candidates because "they almost always empathize with the accused."

 His attorneys also cited a 1986 analysis by The Dallas Morning News. That study found that prosecutors used peremptory challenges to remove 90 % of the blacks eligible to serve on the juries in 15 death-penalty cases from 1980 to 1986.

 "Irrespective of whether the evidence could prove sufficient to support a charge of systematic exclusion of African-Americans, it reveals that the culture of the district attorney's office in the past was suffused with bias against African-Americans in jury selection," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.

 Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only black member, dissented.

 The Dallas County district attorney's office was closed Tuesday because of the icy weather, and officials could not be reached to comment. A spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office, which argued the case before the Supreme Court, would say only that the office respects the court's decision.

 Rick Halperin, a Southern Methodist University professor who is president of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, applauded the high court for sharply condemning racial bias in jury selection.

 "The sad reality is within the justice system, clearly race counts," Halperin said. "This court at least said it shouldn't have by an overwhelming majority." 

25 de febrero de 2003

EEUU.- El Supremo aprueba la revisi�n del caso del condenado a muerte Miller-El por discriminaci�n racial en su proceso

El Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos aprob� hoy, por ocho votos a favor y uno en contra, que se permita a Thomar Miller-El, condenado a muerte en Texas, presentar pruebas de que fue v�ctima de prejuicios raciales durante la selecci�n del jurado que le juzg�. La decisi�n, que parad�jicamente s�lo Publicidad

 obtuvo el voto en contra del �nico juez negro del Supremo, Clarence Thomas, concede pues a Miller-El el beneficio de la duda y la revisi�n del caso.

Thomas Miller-El fue condenado a muerte por el asesinato en 1985 de un empleado de hotel, Douglas Walker en Irving, Texas. Miller-El iba a ser ejecutado el a�o pasado, pero su muerte por inyecci�n letal fue suspendida a la espera de la revisi�n de su caso por el Tribunal Supremo. El Estado de Texas mantiene el record de ejecuciones desde el reestablecimiento de la pena de muerte en Estados Unidos en 1976.

 Seg�n la demanda de Miller-El, durante su proceso, los fiscales del condado de Dallas se prestaron a todo tipo de maniobras racistas en la selecci�n del jurado, con el prop�sito de excluir de �l a las minor�as raciales, maniobras que fueron denunciadas por la prensa local y nacional. Concretamente, antes del inicio del proceso, los fiscales hab�an usado de sus prerrogativas para eliminar a diez de los once jurados potencialmente negros, con el resultado final de que de los doce jurados definitivos, s�lo uno era de color.

 En opini�n del director ejecutivo de la Coalici�n Nacional por la Abolici�n de la Pena de Muerte, Steven W. Hawkins, las autoridades judiciales nunca hab�an tomado "en serio" las denuncias de Thomas seg�n las cuales en su proceso se viol� su derecho, contemplado en la Sexta Enmienda, a un jurado formado por personas en condiciones similares al acusado. "Finalmente, tras todos estos a�os, obtendr� la revisi�n que merec�a desde hace tanto tiempo", a�adi�.

 El juez Anthony Kennedy, en nombre de la mayor�a, declar�: "Hemos dado un cierto peso a las pruebas hist�ricas aportadas por el condenado relativas a la discriminaci�n racial practicada por los servicios de la Fiscal�a". Seg�n el juez, este caso "es revelador de la cultura que dominaba en la Fiscal�a, una cultura caracterizada por la discriminaci�n racial contra los afro-americanos en los procesos de selecci�n del jurado".

 "La hip�tesis seg�n la cual la raza es un criterio se ha visto reforzada por el hecho de que los fiscales la mencionaran por escrito en las cartas de identificaci�n de los jurados", precis� el juez Kennedy.

 El juez discrepante, Thomas, cree que Miller-El no se deber�a beneficiar de un nuevo proceso, ya que, a su juicio, no ha presentado "pruebas claras ni convincentes" de que hubiera discriminaci�n racial en la elecci�n de los jurados.