Racist Views of Jurors Not Sufficient to Overturn Death Sentence

A Black death row inmate who killed his White wife failed to convince the Fifth Circuit on Friday to grant habeas relief after he alleged his conviction by an all-White jury was improper because some jurors expressed opposition to interracial marriage.

Andre Lee Thomas purportedly broke into the apartment of his estranged wife and killed her, her daughter, and their 4-year-old son by stabbing them to death. Thomas, who also attempted to remove his victims’ hearts, went to the local police station to confess to the crimes.

Thomas was indicted in June 2004 and, while awaiting trial, he removed one of his own eyes. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but the state challenged that assertion. Thomas was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury that included individuals who acknowledged they don’t support interracial marriages.

Thomas appealed and brought claims under state habeas corpus procedures, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied all relief and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence that race affected the verdict.

In a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the challenged aspects of that ruling, noting that it was not objectively unreasonable for the lower court to rule as it did.

It wasn’t “objectively unreasonable” to seat the three jurors who admitted having varying degrees of bias against interracial marriage, the court said. One of those jurors said he could set aside his biases for the purposes of the trial, and the state court’s decision is owed deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, it said.

The majority also rejected Thomas’ claim that his counsel was ineffective for not challenging the jurors who opposed interracial marriage and for failing to challenge the ruling on his competency, again citing the “objectively reasonable” standard. Thomas’ attorney was also found to have properly prepared for arguments on mitigating factors.

Judge Leslie H. Southwick wrote the opinion, which was joined by Judge Edith H. Jones.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson concurred in part and dissented in part. He emphasized that empaneling the three jurors was “objectively unreasonable” and contradicted clearly established U.S. Supreme Court and circuit precedent.

Racial animus was “condemned by the unanimous Supreme Court one half century ago in Loving v. Virginia as ‘odious,’ ‘invidious,’ and ‘repugnant’,” he said. And the juror who said he could set aside his bias “never retreated from his ‘beliefs about interracial marriage,’” Higginson noted.

“I would apply clearly established Supreme Court law to forbid persons from being privileged to participate in the judicial process to make life or death judgment about brutal murders involving interracial marriage and offspring those jurors openly confirm they have racial bias against. The law rightly condemned this repugnancy when enacted as law by lawmakers, just as it must condemn it when we ask citizens to join us as judges,” he wrote.

Thomas is represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP. The Texas Office of the Attorney General represented the state.

The case is Thomas v. Lumpkin, 5th Cir., No. 17-70002, 4/23/21.