Pitchford v. Cain

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 15 Dec 2025

1. District Attorney Doug Evans convicted Terry Pitchford, aged 18 years at the time of the crime, of capital murder and secured a death verdict in the Grenada Circuit Court before Judge Joseph Loper on February 9, 2006, with the entirety of jury selection and opening arguments taking place on February 6. After direct and collateral reviews in state court, the Northern District of Mississippi granted habeas corpus relief upon concluding that the trial court failed to determine the plausibility of the prosecutor’s proffered reasons for peremptorily striking four Black venire members or otherwise consider the full circumstances bearing upon whether Mr. Evans’s reasons for striking any and each of these four venire members was pretextual and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In so doing, the District Court ruled the state supreme court’s reliance on its waiver jurisprudence improperly foreclosed consideration of pretext under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that Judge Loper implicitly made determinations for each of the four strikes, trial counsel waived argument of pretext, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi’s waiver jurisprudence comports with Batson. This opinion in Pitchford v. Cain confirmed the Fifth Circuit’s disavowal of earlier circuit jurisprudence recognizing, inter alia, that since Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (Miller-El II), capital petitioners had been unable to “waive[] any Batson claim based on a comparison analysis,” Woodward v. Epps, 580 F.3d 318, 338 (5th Cir. 2009), deepening the Fifth Circuit’s split, joined by two other circuits, with the majority of courts of appeals in the application of Batson. This petition presents the following questions:
2. Does clearly established federal law determined by this Court and applied in six other circuits require reversal of a state appellate court’s denial of relief from a capital prosecutor’s discriminatory exercise of four peremptory strikes against Black venire members wherein the trial court, for each of the four strikes, failed to determine “the plausibility of the reason in light of all evidence with a bearing on it”? Miller-El II, 545 U.S at 251–52.
3. Does Mississippi Supreme Court precedent, which deems waived on direct review arguments of pretext not stated in the trial record, defy this Court’s clearly established federal law under Batson?
4. Does a finding of waiver on a trial record possessing Batson objections, defense counsel efforts to argue the objection, and the trial court’s express assurance the issues were preserved, constitute an unreasonable determination of facts? GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER, UNDER THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN AEDPA, 28 U. S. C. §2254(d), THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT UNREASONABLY DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO REBUT THE PROSECUTOR'S ASSERTED RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR EXERCISING PEREMPTORY STRIKES AGAINST FOUR BLACK JURORS. ORDER OF MARCH 30, 2026: THE MOTION OF PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS GRANTED. CERT. GRANTED 12/15/2025

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The Court held that Mississippi unreasonably applied Batson and unreasonably found that Pitchford waived his challenge to the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of four Black prospective jurors. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the trial court stopped the Batson inquiry after the prosecutor gave race-neutral explanations and did not give defense counsel a fair chance to argue pretext. The court later reassured counsel that the objection was preserved, so it was unreasonable for the Mississippi Supreme Court to say Pitchford had waived the issue. The Court also said that, after a prosecutor offers race-neutral reasons, a Batson objection necessarily includes an opportunity to argue those reasons are pretextual. Applying AEDPA, the Court concluded the state court’s contrary ruling was unreasonable and reversed and remanded.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, dissented. He argued that AEDPA requires strong deference to the state courts and that the majority ignored those limits. In his view, Pitchford did not properly present a step-three Batson argument in the trial court. He said Pitchford’s trial counsel focused on a statistical objection, then later added a comparative juror argument after trial, and the Mississippi Supreme Court reasonably held that the step-three argument was waived. He also said the state court reasonably applied Batson and that federal habeas relief was therefore barred by AEDPA.