Supreme Court Vacates Mississippi Death Sentence Over Mishandled Racial-Bias Jury Claim
On Thursday, May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to overturn the conviction and death sentence of Mississippi inmate Terry Pitchford, vacating his sentence and allowing the state to retry him.[1]
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's three liberal justices, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.[1] The Court said Batson v. Kentucky's required three-step analysis was never completed because the trial judge did not let defense counsel rebut the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations.[1] The justices criticized an "overly hurried" jury-selection process and said "things broke down" so the step-three inquiry did not occur.[1]
Pitchford was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to death, and the Court's decision is likely to require a new trial.[2] Prosecutor Doug Evans said he struck four of five Black prospective jurors for several race-neutral reasons.[1] Those reasons included a juror returning 15 minutes late from lunch, two jurors with brothers convicted of violent crimes, and one juror who was young, unmarried and a father like Pitchford.[1] The Court noted the decision echoes a 2019 Mississippi ruling where it found a trial tainted by racial discrimination in jury selection.[2]
The ruling reopens the question of whether prosecutors unlawfully excluded Black jurors and signals lower courts should fully apply Batson hearings rather than short-circuit them.[3] Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, saying Pitchford did not meet the stringent standard for federal habeas relief and calling the majority's action narrow and limited to Pitchford's record.[1]
Show source details & analysis (4 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- On Thursday, May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Pitchford v. Cain to vacate the conviction of death-row inmate Terry Pitchford and allowed the state to retry him (Terry Pitchford).
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented (Justice Brett Kavanaugh).
- The Court held that prosecutors’ Batson v. Kentucky three-step analysis was never properly completed at Pitchford’s trial because the judge did not permit defense counsel to rebut the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations (Batson v. Kentucky).
- The Court criticized an 'overly hurried jury-selection process,' saying 'things broke down' and that the required Batson step-three analysis never occurred (hurried jury-selection process).
- Prosecutor Doug Evans justified the peremptory strikes by citing one juror’s 15-minute late return from lunch, two jurors with brothers convicted of violent crimes, and one juror’s demographic similarity to Pitchford (young, unmarried father) (Prosecutor Doug Evans).
- Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent argued Pitchford did not meet the stringent standard for federal habeas relief and described the majority’s decision as narrow and limited to Pitchford’s record (Justice Neil Gorsuch).
- The ruling is described as likely to require a new trial for Pitchford, echoes a 2019 Mississippi case, and signals that lower courts should not short-circuit Batson hearings in future capital cases alleging exclusion of Black jurors (2019 Mississippi case).
📰 Source Timeline (4)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Thursday, May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision described by the New York Times as allowing a death row inmate to challenge the exclusion of Black jurors, in the same Mississippi case involving Terry Pitchford.
- The article emphasizes that the ruling explicitly reopens the question of whether prosecutors unconstitutionally struck Black prospective jurors and underscores that federal courts must fully apply Batson v. Kentucky’s three-step framework.
- Coverage highlights the broader implications for future capital cases in which defendants allege systemic exclusion of Black jurors, noting that the Court signaled lower courts should not short-circuit Batson hearings.
- The Wall Street Journal confirms the ruling was 5-4 and again identifies Justice Brett Kavanaugh as the author of the majority opinion in Terry Pitchford's case.
- The article characterizes the May 28, 2026 decision as likely requiring a new trial for Terry Pitchford, reiterating that his 2006 conviction and death sentence will not stand as-is.
- The story explicitly links Thursday's ruling to a 2019 Supreme Court decision in another Mississippi case where the Court found a trial was tainted by racial discrimination in jury selection, underscoring a pattern in the Court’s Batson jurisprudence.
- On Thursday, May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Pitchford v. Cain to side with Mississippi death row inmate Terry Pitchford, invalidating his conviction and allowing the state to retry him.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.
- The Court held that Batson v. Kentucky’s third step was never properly completed in Pitchford’s trial because the court did not allow defense counsel to rebut the prosecutor’s asserted race-neutral reasons for striking four of five Black prospective jurors.
- Prosecutor Doug Evans’s stated reasons for the peremptory strikes included a juror returning 15 minutes late from lunch, two jurors having brothers convicted of violent crimes, and one juror’s demographic similarity to Pitchford (young, unmarried, and a father).
- The Supreme Court criticized the hurried jury-selection process and said that “whether due to confusion, oversight, an overly hurried jury selection process, or some other cause, things broke down” and the required Batson step-three analysis never occurred.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent argued that Pitchford did not meet the stringent standard for federal habeas relief and characterized the majority’s decision as narrow and limited to the specific record in Pitchford’s case.