Skip to main content
· 6/13/2005

Miller-El v. Dretke

Citations

  • 545 U.S. 231
  • 125 S. Ct. 2317
  • 162 L. Ed. 2d 196
  • 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4658
  • 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 376
  • 73 U.S.L.W. 4479

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2005 United States Supreme Court case

Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case that clarified the constitutional limitations on the use by prosecutors of peremptory challenges and of the Texas procedure termed the "jury shuffle."[1]

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller-El_v._Dretke&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Thomas Miller-El was charged with capital murder committed in the course of a robbery. After _voir dire _, Miller-El moved to strike the entire jury because the prosecution had used its peremptory challenges to strike ten of the eleven African-Americans who were eligible to serve on the jury. This motion was denied, and Miller-El was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to death.

Opinion of the Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller-El_v._Dretke&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")
]

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in _Batson v. Kentucky _ that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race. Miller-El appealed based on the Batson criteria and asked that his conviction be overturned. In June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to overturn Miller-El's death sentence, finding his jury selection process had been tainted by racial bias.

The Court had held in Batson that a defendant could rely on "all relevant circumstances" in making out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. Miller-El clarified that "all relevant circumstances" included evidence outside "the four corners of the case."[2] Specifically, the Court allowed statistical analysis of the venire,[3] side-by-side comparison of struck and empaneled jurors,[4] disparate questioning,[5] and evidence of historical discrimination.[6]

In 2008, Miller-El pleaded guilty to the 1985 murder of Douglas Walker, a Holiday Inn clerk who had been bound, gagged, then shot to death. The murder of Walker was the crime that Miller-El was originally sent to death row for.[7]

The Court extended the holding of Miller-El in _Snyder v. Louisiana _.

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller-El_v._Dretke&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005).
  2. Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 240.
  3. Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 240-41.
  4. Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 241.
  5. Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 255.
  6. Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 263.
  7. "Former death row inmate pleads guilty to 1985 crime" . The Dallas Morning News. Plainview Herald.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller-El_v._Dretke&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")
]

United States equal protection and criminal procedure case law

Discrimination in jury selection

  • *Glasser interpreted the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment. **Thiel and Edmonson were civil cases.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller-El_v._Dretke&oldid=1351327669 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Search

Search

Miller-El v. Dretke

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • looking to “[t]he whole of the 24 voir dire testimony” and “broader patterns of practice during the jury selection” to 25 determine whether strikes were based on race
  • “If a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a 13 black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar [panelist who is not 14 black] who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful 15 discrimination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Souter, Breyer, Thomas, Scalia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.