I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - DP - 0 0 4 4 1 - S CT TER RY P

I TCHFORD
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 09/ 2006 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J OSE P H H. LOP ER, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GRENADA COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: ALI S ON R. S TE I NER RA Y C HA RLES CAR TER AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L B Y : P A T R IC K J O S E P H M c N A M A R A , J R
. DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: DOUG E VANS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CRI M I NAL - DEATH P ENALT Y - DI REC T AP P E AL D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 24/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T err y Pi t chf

or d and an a ccompl i ce ki l l ed a s t or e- ow neri n G r enada C ounty dur i ng t he
co u rse o f an a rm ed ro b b ery . P it ch ford w as in d ict ed , tr ied, an d co n v ict ed o f ca p it al m u rde r, and the j ury f

ound thathe shoul d be execut ed by l ethal i nj ect i on. H e appea l s , ra i s i ng forour
r evi ew s event een i s s ues . B eca us e w e f i nd no r ever s i bl e err or , w e af f i r m the convi ct i on and
s ent ence .

### 2 B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2. O n the m orni ng of N ov em ber 7, 20 04 , W al t er D avis and his son en t ered t he C r os s r oa ds G r oc e r y, w he r e the y d i s c ov e r e d the bo dy of the owner , Reub e n Br i t t . They i m m edi at el y cal l ed 9 11 , and G renada C ou nty Sh eri ff’s D epart m ent I nves t i gat orG r eg C onl ey
r es ponded. ¶ 3
. Du r i n g h i s i n i t i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n a t th e s c e n e , I n v e s t i g a t o r Co n l e y o b s e r v e d th a ts o me of B ri t t ’s w ou nd s app eared t o hav e been m ade by a proj ect i l e, and other s by p ell ets,
s ugges t i ng t o I nves t i gat orConl ey thattw o di f f er entw eapons w er e i nvol ved. M i s s i ng f r om th e s to re w e re a c a s h r e g is te r, s o m e c a s h , a n d a .3 8 c a lib e r re v o lv e r lo a d e d w ith “ ra t s h o t.” A l s o d ur i ng hi s i ni t i a l i nv e s t i ga t i on , I nv e s t i ga t orConl e y r e c e i ve d i nf ormat i on s ugges t i ng that
a v eh icl e o w n ed b y T erry P it ch ford m atch ed the d esc ri p ti o n o f th e c ar u sed b y B ri tt ’s
as s ai l ant s , and thatPi t chf or d had been p artof

a pr evi ous att empt t o r ob the C r os s r oads G r ocery. ¶4. A tPi t chf

or d’ s hom e, C onl ey f

ound a ca rmat chi ng the des cr i pt i on of the one i nvol ved i n the homi ci de atthe C r os s r oad’ s gr ocery. A f t era s ear ch of

the vehi cl e pr oduced the
m i s s i ng . 38 cal i berr evol ver , Pi t chf or d w as t aken i nt o cus t ody. ¶5. O n N ovember7 and 8, 2004, Inve s t i gat orC onl ey and I nv est i gatorR obertJ enni ngs of the local dis tri ctat t orney’s off i ce i nterview ed P i t chford. D uri ng tho se i nterview s, Pi t chf or d conf es s ed thathe and Er i c B ul l i ns had gone t o the s t or e w i th the i nt ent i on of
ro b b in g it
. P itch fo rd sta ted th a t B u lli n s h a d sh o t B ritt th re e tim e s w ith a .2 2 c a lib e r p isto l,
an d tha the ( Pi t c hf

or d) ha d f

i r e d s ho t s i nt o the f

l oo r . Pi t c hf

or d a l s o c on f

e s s e d tha the ha d att empt ed t o r ob t he s ame st or e a w eek a nd a hal f pr i ort o the murde ron N ovember7.

### 3

Pi t chf or d a l s o c onf

es s ed hi s r ol e i n the m ur der s t o f el l ow i nm at es D antr on M i t chel l and J ames H at chcoc k. ¶6. O n J anuary 11, 2005, the G r enada Count y G r and J ury i ndi ct ed Pi t chf or d f orcapi t al
m u rde r. A ft er h e w a s a p p o inted co u n sel, h e w as a rraign ed o n F eb rua ry 9 , 2 0 0 5 , an d jury
se lec tio n c o m m e n c e d o n F e b ru a ry 6 , 2 0 0 6 . O f th e 3 5 0 re g iste re d v o ter s o f G re n a d a C o u n ty
w ho w er e s um m oned t o a s peci al veni r e, 126 r eturned j ury ques t i onnai r es and appe ar ed upon thei rs um m ons es . O f

t hes e, f or ty w er e A f

r i can- A m er i can, ei ghty- f ourw er e C auca s i on, one
w as H i s pani c, and one di d notpr ovi de r ace i nf or m at i on. ¶7. T he tr i al j udge ( w i thoutobj ect i on f r om ei therparty) excus ed ce r t ai n j ur or s f or
s t atut ory caus e and otherr eas ons unrel at ed t o the ca s e. A tthatpoi nt , the veni r e s t ood at ni nety- s i x, of

w hi ch thi r ty- f

i ve w er e A f

r i can- A m er i can, and s i xty- one w er e w hi t e. Fol l ow i ng voi rdi r e by the at t orneys , the tr i al j udge ( w i thoutobj ect i on f r om ei therpar ty)
s truck f i f ty- tw o pr os pect i ve j ur or s f orcaus e and thr ee other s f orr eas ons notdi s cl os ed i n the
r ecor d, l eavi ng thi r ty- s i x w hi t e per s ons and f i ve A f r i can- A m er i cans i n the veni r e. ¶8. T he att orneys w er e al l ow ed t o exer ci s e s tr i kes onl y on the tw el ve l ow es t - num ber ed
m ember s of

the ven i re. E ach t i m e a s tr i ke w as exer ci s ed, the nextl ow es t - num ber ed j ur or j oi ned the tw el ve pot ent i al j ur or s s ubj ectt o pe r empt ory s tr i kes
. T he St at e exe r ci s ed s even per empt ory s tr i kes , a nd Pi t chf or d e xer ci s ed tw el ve. T he per s ons w ho r epl ace d the ni net een str ikes , p lus the o ri g inal tw elve , resu lt ed in thirty -on e p o tential juro rs su b ject t o p ere m p tory stri kes by the att orneys. ¶9. O f

the thi rty- on e po t e nt i a l j ur or s s ub j e c tt o p e r e mpt ory s tr i ke s , Pi t chf or d s truck tw el ve
w hi t es and no A f

r i can- A m er i cans . T hus , ther e w er e ni net een pot ent i al j ur or s – f our t een ofLo den v . S tat e , 971 So. 2d 548, 562 (Mi ss. 2007) (quoti ng Ba lfo ur v. St ate , 598 So. 2d 731, 1 73 9 (M iss . 1 99 2))
. Id. (quoting Irvin

g v . S tat e , 3 61 So . 2 d 1 36 0, 13 63 (Mi ss. 19 78 )). 2 

### 4 w h o m w ere w h ites a n d fi v e o f w h o m w ere A fri ca n -A m erican s – su b ject t o the S tat e’s per empt ory s tr i kes
. A l though the St at e w as al l ow ed t w el ve per empt ory s tr i kes , i texer ci s ed
on l y seven – thr ee w hit es and fou r A fr i can-A m eri cans. ¶1 0. Fol l owi ng j ury s e l e c t i on , the c a s e pr oc e e de d t o tr i a l , a nd on Fe brua ry 8, 20 06, t he j ury f ound Pi t chf

or d gui l ty of

capi t al m urder. O n February 9, the ca s e pr ocee ded t o the p en alty p h ase , at w h ich th e jury im p o sed a se n tenc e o f de ath b y leth al i n jecti o n . P it ch ford filed a m o tio n fo r a n e w trial o n F e b ru a ry 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , w h ich w a s d e n ied . H e tim e ly filed h is
n o tice o f a p p e a l. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶11. W e r evi ew de ath- penal ty a ppeal s unde ra he i ght ened s t andar d of r evi ew . A s w e have pr evi ous l y s t at ed, [ t ] he s t andar d f

orthi s C ou rt ' s r evi ew of an appe al f

r om a capi t al m ur der c o n v ictio n a n d d e a th se n ten c e is a b u n d a n tly c lea r. O n a p p e a l to th is C o u rt, con vict i on s upo n indi ct m ents forcapit al m urder and sentences of deat h m ust b e s u b je c te d to “ h e ig h te n e d s c ru tin y .” 1 A ddi t i onal l y, w e h ave st at ed that“w hatm ay be ha r m l es s err ori n a ca s e w i th l es s ats t ake beco mes r e ve r s i bl e e r r orwhen the p e na l ty i s d e a th. ” Bea r i ng i n mi nd o urs t a nd a r d of 2
re v ie w , w e sh a ll n o w p ro c e e d to a n a ly z e P itch fo rd ’s a ss ig n m e n ts o f e rro r in th e o rd e r in wh i c h h e p r e s e n t e d th e m. I . W H E T H E R T H E J U R Y S E L E C T I O N P R O C E S S W A S CO NS T I T UT I ON AL L Y I NF I RM AN D R E QU I RE S RE VE RS AL OF P I T CH F OR D’ S CO NV I CT I ON AN D S E NT E NC E OF DE AT H.47 6 U .S . 7 9, 10 6 S . C t. 1 71 2, 90 L. Ed . 2 d 6 9 (1 98 6). 3 The record of the ra cial make-up of the venire i s no t well-pr eserved. Much of the 4 inf ormati on up on wh ich wem us t re ly c om es f

rom hand written notation s o n ju

ry l ist s whic h are included in the record. Some of the notations ar e il legible and, al though subs tantial ly similar, the information on the jury li sts does not match the i nform ation rec ited in Pit chford’s brief. Id. at 82-84. 5 Snyder v. Louisiana , 552 U.S. 472, 128 S . Ct. 1203, 1208, 170 L. Ed. 2d 175 (2008) 6 (internal citations omitted). 

### 5 ¶ 1 2
. In h is firs t as sig n m e n t o f e rr o r, P itc h fo rd m a k e s th re e a rg u m e n ts, w h ich w e sh a ll addr es s i n turn. A
. W h e th e r T h e S tate D isc ri m in a ted O n T h e B a sis O f R a c e In Its P ere m p tory S tr ikes In V iolati o n o f B at s on v. K entucky
. ¶1 3. C i t i ng B ats on v. K entucky, Pi t chford ass ert s the S t at e e x erc ised it s p ere m p tory

3
s tr i ke s i n a r a c i a l l y d i s c r i mi na t ory man ne r . I n B at s on , the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt 4 h e ld th a t th e S tate o f K e n tu c k y w a s p ro h ib ited fro m ra c ia lly d isc rim in a tin g th ro u g h its
exer ci s e of

per empt ory s tr i kes
. B ui l di ng on B at s on , the Supr eme C our tl at ers t at ed thatt he 5 C ons t i tut i on f

orbi ds s tr i ki ng e ven a s i ngl e j ur orf ora di s cr i m i nat ory purpos e. Forpurpos es 6
o f a n a ly z in g a c la im o f d is c ri m in a tio n in ju ry s e le c tio n , B at s on a nd i t s pr og e ny have
e s t a b l i s h e d a th r e e - s t e p i n q u i r y f o rc o u r t s t o f

o l l o w. ¶1 4. Fi r s t , t he pa rty ob j e c t i ng t o the pe r e mpt ory s tr i ke of a po t e nt i a l j ur or mus t m ake a pr i m a f aci e s how i ng thatr ace w as the cr i t er i on f orthe s tr i ke. Second, upon s uch a s how i ng, the bur den s hi f

t s t o the St at e t o art i cul at e a r ace - neutr al r eas on f orexcl udi ng thatpart i cul ar j ur or . Fi nal l y, a f

t era r ace - neutr al e xpl anat i on has been of f er ed by the pr os ecut i on, the tr i al
courtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe obj ect i ng party has m eti t s bur den t o pr ove thatther e hasFl owersv. St

ate , 9 47 So . 2 d 9 10 , 9 17 (Mi ss. 20 07 ) (c itatio ns omitt ed). 7 A lt h o u ghw e u s e th e d e f

e n s e a s ane xam

ple , a Batson challenge may be brought by the 8 prosecuti on if it suspects that the defense has exercised a perem ptory strike based on the r ac e ( or oth er p rot ect ed

cla ssi fi cation) of

thepro sp ectivejuror. S trick lan d

v. S ta te , 9 80 S o. 2d 908, 916 n. 1 ( M i s s . 2008) ci t i ng Flow ers , 947 So. 9 2d at935. 

### 6 been purpos ef

ul di s cr i m i nat i on i n the exer ci s e of the per empt ory s tr i ke, i
. e. , thatthe r eas on gi ven w as a pr et extf

ordi s cr i m i nat i on. 7 P r i m a f aci e s how i ng ¶15. A s s t at ed, a tr i al courtf ace d w i th a B at

s on c hal l enge m ustdeter m i ne w het her the d efe n se ha s m ad e a p ri m a fac ie sho w ing th at r ac e w as the cri teri o n for th e p ro sec u ti o n ’s

8
s tr i ke. T his C ourthas hel d thatthe r equi r ed pr i m a f aci e s how i ng can be m ade by d em o n str ati n g that the p erc en tage o f th e S tat e’s p ere m p tory str ikes ex e rc ise d o n m em b ers of t he p r ot e c t e d c l a s s was s i gn i f i c a nt l y hi gh e rtha n the p e r c e nt a ge o f membe r s o f

t he pr ot ect ed cl as s i n t he veni r e. 9 ¶16
. P i t c h f

o r d point s ou ti n his bri ef that the S t at e used only s even o f i ts p ere m p tory
s tr i kes , f ourof w hi ch r emoved A f

r i can- A m er i cans f

r om t he ven i re. A s a r es ul t , onl y one A fr i can-A m eri can rem ai ned on the jury o f f ou rt een (tw el ve jur ors and t w o alt ernat es)
. T his , Pi t chf or d ar gues , i s i ncompat i bl e w i th the f actthat , i n 2006, A f

r i can- A m er i cans m ade up appr oxi m at el y f

or ty per centof

G r enada C ounty’ s popul at i on. I n thatr egar d, the f ol l ow i ng
e x c h a n g e o c c u rre d a t trial: M S. ST E I N E R : A l l ow us t o s t at e i nt o the r ecor d ther e i s on e of 12 – of

fo u rte e n ju ro rs, a re n o n -w h ite, w h e re a s th is c o u n ty is a p p ro x im a tely , w h a t, 40 p e rc e n t?W e do not refer to the entire venire re sponding to thei r jury summ onses, but rather to the 10 mem bers of the venir e who were actuall y subject t o the State’s decision to keep or strike, that is, the first tw elv e p res ented

to t heStat e, plus the s ev enwh o repla ced theSt ate ’s s ev enstrike s. Th os e nin ete en v en ire m enw ereth e on ly m em be rs of th e entire ve nire ag ain st wh om th e State coul d po ssibly hav e disc riminated . Therac ialm akeu p o f t hem em be rs o f t heve nire who we re n ev er considered for per emptory strikes is not relevant to the i nquiry. F o r p urp o s e s o f

an a lyz ingth e p rim af

a c ies h o w ing , w e r e c o gn iz e th at a c o ld statis tic al 11 analysis wil l determine only whetherthe percent age o f the State’s peremptory strikes of AfricanAmeri can s w as s ignif

icantly h igh er than th e racial makeu p o f t heve nire. Ho we ve r, w e f ully rec ogniz e th at, in t

hereal w orl d, there m aybe m any leg iti m atereas on s f or t hepe rce ntageim

ba lan ce. Indeed , o nc e a s tatistical im ba lan ce i s es tab lis he d, theSt ateis allo we d to explain it s re aso ns fo r ea ch strike
. 

### 7 M R
. B A U M : T he county i s 40 per centbl ack. T H E C O U R T : I don’ t know about the r aci al m akeup, but I w i l l not e f or the r ecor d ther e i s one r egul arm emberof the panel that i s bl ack, A f

r i can A m er i can r ace . I n hi s m ot i on f

ora new tr i al , P i t c h f

o r d s t at ed the f

ol l ow i ng: T he s t at e w as al l ow ed t o us e al l of i t s pe r empt ory c hal l enges t o r emove al l but one A f r i can- A m er i can f

r om the j ury r es ul t i ng i n a j ury composed of l es s than 10% A f r i can- A m er i can c i t i zens s el ect ed f r om a cou nt y w i th near l y a 45% A f r i can- A m er i can popul at i on. A l though P i t c h f

o r d ’ s c ouns el made thes e as s ert i ons , he pr es ent ed the tr i al j udge no evi dence of the r aci al m akeup of

G r enada C ounty. A nd r egar dl es s of the r aci al m akeup of

G r enada C o u n ty , w e are p e rsu a d e d tha t th e rec o rd su p p o rts th e tri a l co u rt’s fin d in g o f a p rim a fa c ie
s how i ng of

di s cr i m i nat i on. ¶1 7. T he r aci al m ake up o f the v e ni r e s ub

j e c tt o the St a t e ’ s per empt or y s t r i kes w as 10 fourt een w hit es ( seventy-f ou r per cent) , and fi ve b l acks (tw en ty-six percent)
. T hu s, sta tistica lly sp e a k in g , if a ll o th e r fa c to rs w e re e q u a l, th e S tate ’s p e re m p to ry strik e s s h o u ld 11 appr oxi m at e thes e per cent ages , r es ult i ng in the s t at e s tr i ki ng ei therone ortw o A f r i can-26% x 7 = 1.8. 12 

### 8 A m er i cans . H ow ever , the S t at e us ed f i f ty- s even pe r centof

i t s per empt ory s tr i kes on 12 A fri ca n -A m erican s. S tat ed an o ther w ay , the S tat e u sed fif ty-sev en p erc en t of i ts pe rem p tory
s tr i kes (f ouroutof s even) t o r emove A f r i can- A m er i cans f

r om a veni r e compr i s ed of tw entysi x percent A fr i can A m eri can and s even ty-f ou r percent w hit e. W hil e the dif fer ence in t hese per cent ages i s nots o greatas t o cons t i tut e, as a mat t erof l aw , a pr i m a f

aci e f i ndi ng of di s cr i m i nat i on, i ti s s uf

f i ci entf ora tr i al j udge – w ho w as “on t he gr ound” and a bl e t o obs erve the voi rdi r e pr oces s , and i n t he exe r ci s e of s ound di s cr et i on – t o s o f i nd. ¶1 8. W e cannot s a y the tr i a l c ou r t a bu s e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n f i nd i ng tha t P i t c h f

o r d made a pr i m a f aci e ca s e of

di s cr i m i nat i on. A pr i m a f aci e ca s e, how ever , i s nothi ng m or e than a l evel of s us pi ci on the tr i al j udge f i nds s i gni f

i cantenough t o m er i tf

ur theri nqui ry. R ace- neutr alr eas ons – pr et ext ¶ 1 9
. B e c a u se th e trial ju d g e w a s p e rsu a d e d th a t P itch fo rd h a d d e m o n stra ted a p rim a fa c ie
cas e of di s cr i m i nat i on, he then r equi r ed t he St at e t o provi de i t s ra ce- neutr al re as on f oreac h per empt ory s tr i ke exe r ci s ed on an A f r i can- A m er i can. T he f

our bl ack j uror s s truck by the St at e w er e: C ar l os Fi t zger al d W ar d, L i nda R uth L ee, C hri st opherL amont T i l l m on, and P a tr i c i a An n T i d we l l
. On a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w,
w e g iv e g re a t d e fe re n c e to th e trial c o u rt' s f in d in g s o f w h e th e r o r n o t a p ere m p tory ch all en g e w a s rac e-n eu tr al .
. . . S u ch d efe ren ce is ne ce ssary beca us e f

i ndi ng t hata s tr i ki ng par ty engage d i n di s cr i m i nat i on i s l ar gel y a f actual f i ndi ng and thus s houl d be ac cor ded appr opr i at e def er ence on appea l

. . . . Inde ed, w e w i l l notoverrul e a tr i al courton a B at s on rul i ng u nl e s s t heLynch v . S tat e , 877 So. 2d 1254, 1270 (Miss. 2004) ( quoting Wa lker v. S tat e , 815 So. 2d 13 12 09 , 1 21 4 (M iss . 2 00 2))
. 51 7 S o. 2d

13 46 , 1 35 6-5 7 (M iss . 1 98 7). 14 

### 9 r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe rul i ng w as cl ear l y err oneous oragai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. 13 C arl os W

ard ¶20. A s t o i t s r ace - neutr al r eas ons f ors tr i ki ng W ar d, the pr os ecut ors t at ed: W e h a v e s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . On e , h e h a d n o o p i n i o n o n th e d e a th p e n a l t y . He has a tw o- year - ol d chi l d. H e h as ne verbeen marr i ed. H e has num er ous sp e e d in g v io latio n s th a t w e a re a w a re o f. T h e re a so n th a t I d o n o t w a n t h im as a j ur ori s he i s t oo cl os el y r el at ed t o t he def endant
. H e i s appr oxi m at el y the s a me a g e a s th e d e f

e n d a n t . Th e y b o th h a v e n e v e rb e e n ma rr i e d
. I n my opi ni on he w i l l notbe abl e t o notbe t hi nki ng aboutthes e i s s ues , es peci al l y on th e se c o n d p h a se . A n d I d o n ’t th in k h e w o u ld b e a g o o d ju ro r b e c a u se o f th a t. ¶21. I n L o c k e tt v. S ta te , t hi s C our ti ncl uded an appendi x of “i l l us trat i ve exa m pl es ” of 14
r ace - neutr al r eas ons uphel d by othercourt s w hi ch i ncl udes a ge and m ar i t al s t atus . T he tr i al j udge f ound the St at e’ s pr of

f er ed r ace - neutr al r eas on acc ept abl e. W e ca nnots ay t he t r i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on. Li nda R uth Lee ¶22. I n s t at i ng i t s r ace - neutr al r eas on forst ri king p ros pect i ve j ur orL ee, the pr os ecut or
s t at ed: S- 2 i s bl ack f

emal e, j ur ornum ber30. She i s the one thatw as 15 m i nut es l at e. She al s o, a ccor di ng t o pol i ce of f i cer , pol i ce c apt ai n, C arverC onl ey, has m ent al p ro b lem s. T h e y h a v e h a d n u m e ro u s c a lls to h e r h o u se a n d sa id sh e o b v io u sly h a s m e n ta l p ro b le m s . . . .Lynch v. St ate , 877 So. 2d 1254, 1271-72 (Miss. 2004)
. 15 

### 10 ¶23. T hat a j ur or “obvi ous l y has m ent al pr obl ems” w as cl ear l y a r ace neutr al r eas on. T he tr i al j udge f

ound the St at e’ s pr of

f er ed r ace - neutr al r eas on acc ept abl e. W e cannots ay the tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on. C hr is t opherLam ontTi l lm on ¶24
. T he S t at e proff

ered the fol l ow i ng reas on for exerci si ng a perem ptory stri ke ag ai nst T i l l m on: S -3 i s a black m ale, n um ber 31. C hri st op her L am on tT i l l m on . H e has a b ro th e r w h o h a s b e e n c o n v icte d o f m a n sla u g h ter . A n d co n sid e rin g th a t th is is a m ur dercas e, I don’ tw antanyone on the j ury thathas r el at i ves convi ct ed of si m i l ar of

fenses
. ¶25. T hi s C our thas r ecogni zed a j ur or ’ s ( orf ami l y m ember ’ s ) cr i m i nal hi s t ory t o be a r ace n eu tr al reaso n for e x erc isi n g a p ere m p tory ch all en g e. T h e tri al j u d g e fo u n d th e S tat e’s 15 pr of f er ed r ace - neutr al re as on acce pt abl e. W e ca nnots ay the tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on. P a tric ia A n n e T

idw e ll ¶ 2 6
. T h e S tate p ro ffe re d th e fo llo w in g re a so n fo r strik in g T id w e ll: S -4 is juro r nu m b er 4 3 , a b lac k fem ale, Pa tr ici a A n n e T idw ell
. H er b roth er, D avi d T i dw el l , w as convi ct ed i n thi s courtof s exual batt ery. A nd herbr other i s now char ged i n a s hoot i ng cas e thati s a pendi ng cas e her e i n G r enada
. A nd also , ac co rdin g to p o li ce o ffi ce rs, sh e is a k n o w n d rug u ser. ¶27. T he t r i al j udge f

ound t he St at e’ s prof

f er ed r ace - neutr al r eas on acc ept abl e. W e cannot
s ay the tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on. P r et ext ¶2 8. Pi t chf

or d ar gu e s o n a pp e a l tha tthe St a t e ’ s p r of f e r e d r a c e - neut r al r eas ons w er e a pr et extf ordi s cr i m i nat i on. Pi t chf or d poi nt s outthats om e of the r eas ons the St at e pr of f er edBerry v. St ate , 8 02 So . 2 d 1 03 3, 10 37 (Mi ss 2 00 1); Ma nn in g v . S tat e , 735 So. 2d 323, 339 16 (Mi ss. 19 99 ) (“ It i s in cum be nt u po n a de fend ant cl aimingthat prof fered rea so ns arepre textual to rai se t heargum ent be fo re thetri al c ourt. Th e f ailureto do s o con sti tut es w aiv er. ”); Wo od wa rd v. St ate , 726 So. 2d5 24 , 53 3 (Mi ss. 1997) (“I n the absence of an actual proffer of evidence by the de fend ant to reb ut t

heSt ate ’s n eutral explanatio ns , this C ourt mayno t re ve rseon thi s p oint”)
. 

### 11 for it s str ikes o f blac k s w ere a lso true o f w h it es the S tat e d id n o t stri k e. A lth o u g h P it ch ford devot ed a c ons i der abl e port i on of hi s bri ef and ora l ar gum entbef

or e t hi s C our tt o hi s pr et ext argum ent, he d i d n o tpresentthese argum ents t o the tri al cou rtdu ri ng the v oirdir e process or duri ng po st -tri al m oti on s. ¶ 2 9
. T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld tha t, “ [i] f th e d e fe n d a n t fails to re b u t, th e trial ju d g e m u st b a se h is [o r h e r] d e c is io n o n th e re a s o n s g iv e n b y th e S ta te .” 16 ¶30. A s s t at ed, Pi t chf or d pr ov i ded the t r i al courtno r ebutt al t o the St at e’ s r ace - neutr al
rea so n s. W e w il l no t n o w fa u lt the tr ial jud g e w ith fail ing to d iscern w h ethe r th e S tat e’s
r ace - neutr al r eas ons w er e over come by r ebutt al evi dence and ar gum entneverpr es ent ed. ¶31
. P i t chford al so ar gu es that the t otal i ty of the ci rcum st ances sho w s tha t th e S tat e’s per empt ory chal l enges w er e exe r ci s ed i n a di s cr i m i nat ory m anner . Pi t chf or d poi nt s outthe f actthatt he St at e use d onl y seve n of i t s t w el ve per empt ory chal l enges , s tr i ki ng f ourof f i ve bl acks on the pane l , butonl y t hr ee of thi r ty- f i ve w hi t es . Pi t chf

or d p oint s ou tthat , even though the St at e had f

i ve avai l abl e per empt ory s tr i kes , i tf ai l ed t o s tr i ke w hi t es w ho s har ed
s i m i l archar act er i s t i cs t o s om e of the bl acks w ho w er e s truck f orcaus e. ¶32. W e f

i nd thi s t o be Pi t chf

or d’ s att empt t o pr esenth i s pret ext ar gu m enti n another packa ge. A s al r eady s t at ed w i th r es pectt o eac h of t he f ourA f r i can- A m er i cans struck by t heW e agree with Presidi ng Justice Graves’s argument that – i n adjudicat ing the pret ext issue 17 – th e trialjudgem

us t lo ok at thetot ali ty o f th e circum stanc es an d a ll o f t hefa cts . H ow ev er tho se circum stanc es and

fa cts do no t in cludeargum ents n ot mad e b y P itc hf ord ’s c ouns el. Se e Witherspoon v. Ill

in ois , 3 91 U. S. 51 0, 88 S. Ct . 1 77 0, 20 L. Ed . 2 d 7 76 (19 68 ) (S tat e 18 m ayno t ex clude jur ors for ca us e b eca us e o f g en eral ob

jec tio ns to t

hede ath pe na ltyor e xp res sed co ns cie nti ou s o r re lig iou s sc rup les ag ain st i ts inf lic tio n). 

### 12 St at e, Pi t chf

or d f ai l ed t o pr ovi de any a r gum entconce rni ng p re t extdur i ng the B at s on h e a r i n g . W e wi l l n o te n t e r t a i n th o s e a r g u me n t s n o w.

17 B
. W h ethe r T h e T rial C o u rtO therw ise D ep ri v ed D efe n d an t O f A Ju ry C om pri sed A s R equ i red B y T he S i xth A nd F ou rt eenth A m end m ents . ¶ 3 3
. A s to this as sig n m e n t of err o r, P itch fo rd m a k e s tw o a rg u m e n ts: first, th a t th e d e a th qual i f i cat i on pr oces s , i t s el f

, s o di s pr opor t i onat el y i m pact s bl ack j ur ors tha ti tamount s t o a vi ol at i on of

the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e; and s econd, thatthe tr i al j udge i m pr oper l y r emoved f orcaus e j ur or s w ho w er e pr oper l y qual i f i ed. ¶34. T he St at e as s ert s thatthi s e nt i r e l i ne of a r gum enti s pr oced ural l y b arr ed becau se P itc h fo rd fa ile d to ra is e a c o n te m p o ra n e o u s o b je c tio n w h e n th e ju ro rs w e r e e x c u s e d
. P it ch for d co ntends, ho w ever, that he preserved the is sue by obj ect i ng pri or t o the cou rt ’s rel easi ng any of the indi vidual s i den t i fi ed as W itherspoon - i nel i gi bl e. W e f i nd t hat 18 P itch fo rd is c o rre c t, an d th a t th is iss u e w a s p ro p e rly p re se rv e d fo r a p p e a l. R acialD iscri m i na t i on as a resul tof death-qua l i f i cati on process. ¶3 5. A tthe c on c l us i on o f v oi rd i r e , the t r i al cour texcl uded t hi r t y of t he t hi r t y- f

i ve p ro sp e c tiv e b lac k jur o rs fo r ca u se . T h e re c o rd re v e a ls th a t m o st (a n d P itch fo rd a lleg e s in h is br i ef thatal l ) w er e exc l uded bec aus e t hey w er e phi l os ophi cal l y unabl e t o cons i deri m pos i ng a sent ence o f death. P i t chford argue s t hat the dis propo rt i on at e ex cl usi on o f bl acks for causeUn derwoo d v . S tat e , 708 So. 2d 18, 28-29 (Miss. 1998) (quoting Pi nk ne y v. St ate , 538 So. 19 2d 329, 346-47 ( Miss. 1988), vacated on other grounds by Pinkney v. Missi ssippi , 494 U.S. 1075, 110 S. Ct. 1800, 108 L. Ed. 2d 931 (1990). Mo rg an v. Ill in ois , 504 U.S. 719, 728-29, 112 S. C t. 2222, 119 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1992). Se e 20 als o Gray so n v . S tat e , 8 06 So. 2d 241, 25 4 (M iss . 2 00 1) ( strikefo r ca us e p rop er whe re p otenti al juror’s viewpoint on the death penalty “[w]ould prevent or substant ially i mpair the performance of his duties as a jurorin accordanc e with his ins tructi ons and his oath” ) quoting Adams v. Texas , 448 U. S. 38 , 4 5, 10 0 S . C t. 2 52 1, 65 L. Ed . 2 d 5 81 (19 80 )). 

### 13 “cr eat es a pr i m a f

aci e cas e thatthe E qual Pr ot ect i on Cl aus e has be en vi ol at ed. ” I n o t her
w ords, P i t c h f

o r d argues that, i n g eneral , the p ercent age of A fr i can-A m eri cans w ho op po se the d eat h p enalty is higher than the p ercent age o f w hit es. ¶ 3 6
. T h is C o u rt, a d d re ss in g a sim ilar a rg u m e n t, h a s h e ld th a t “ a d e fe n d a n t h a s n o rig h t to a pet i tj ury composed i n w hol e ori n partof per s ons of

hi s ow n r ace . ” T he gis tof the 19 h o lding s in the se c ase s is th at – in th e co n text o f th e righ t t o a tri al by a jury o f on e’s p ee rs

– o n e ’s p e e rs a re n o t d e ter m in e d b y o n e ’s r a c e , so th is a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e rit. ¶37. Pi t chf

or d al s o ar gues that the tr i al j udge’ s ques t i oni ng and excl us i on of fourpanel
m e m b e rs w a s e rro r. P itch fo rd a rg u e s th a t W ithers poon does notrequi re excl us i on of pr os pect i ve j ur or s w ho cannoti m pos e the dea th penal ty. ¶38. A l though W

ithers poon does notaddr es s t he i s s ue, the f ol l ow i ng cl earl anguage f r om a subseq uen tcase do es: W itt hel d t hat“t he pr operst andar d fordet erm i ni ng w hen a pr os pect i ve j ur or m ay be e xcl uded f

orcaus e bec aus e of

hi s or hervi ew s on capi t al puni s hm ent

. . . i s w hetherthe j ur or ' s vi ew s w ou l d ' pr eventors ubs t ant i al l y i m pai rthe p e rfo rm a n c e o f h is d u ties a s a jur o r in a c c o rd a n c e w ith h is in stru c tio n s a n d h is oath. ' " 469 U
. S. a t424, 105 S. Ct
. a t852 ( quot i ng A dam s v. T exas , s upr a, 448 U. S
. a t4 5 , 1 0 0 S
. Ct
. a t2 5 2 6 )
. Un d e rth i s s t a n d a r d , i ti s c l e a rf r o m W itt and A da ms , th e p rog en y o f W ithers poon [,] th a t a ju ro r w h o in n o c a se w o u ld v o te f orcapi t al puni s hm ent , r egar dl es s of hi s or heri ns truct i ons , i s notan i m part i al j ur orand mustbe r emoved f orcaus e. 20

### 14

¶ 3 9
. A lth o u g h th e fo u r ju ro rs in q u e stio n in d ica ted o n th e ir q u e stio n n a ire s th a t th e y c o u ld
n o t im p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty u n d e r a n y c irc u m sta n c e s, P itch fo rd p o in ts o u t th a t, du rin g v o ir di r e, def ens e couns el as ked thes e pr os pect i ve j ur or s s om e var i at i on of “ coul d you cons i der both, notcoul d you vot e f orone. C oul d you cons i der , t hi nk aboutboth and make a dec i s i on
as t o w hi ch one you w ant ed t o vot e f or , ” t o w hich t hey an sw er ed i n the af f i r m at i ve. H ow ever , the t ri al j udge l at erundert ook voi rdi r e of thos e f ourpanel m ember s and as ked them “C an you consi dert he dea th penal ty orw oul d you notbe abl e t o cons i deri t , ” t o w hi ch
e a c h o f th e fo u r re p lied th a t th e y c o u ld n o t co n sid e r it. ¶40. W e f

i nd Mor gan t o be d i r e c t l y on p oi nt . The tr i a l j ud ge d i d notcomm i ter r or by
s tr i ki ng f orcaus e the j ur or s w ho i ndi cat ed they coul d noti m pos e the dea th penal ty. C
. W hetherthe Tri al C our tEr r ed i n Pr ecl udi ng the D ef ens e Fr om Q u e stio n in g P ro sp e c tiv e Ju ro rs C o n c e rn in g T h e ir A b ili ty to C ons i derM i t i gat i ng E vi dence
. ¶41. Pi t chf

or d nextar gues t hat t he t ri al co urtim properl y prevent ed hi m f r om as ki ng pot ent i al j ur or s w hetherthey w oul d cons i ders peci f i c mi t i gat i ng f

act or s . D ur i ng voi rdi r e, the f ol l ow i ng excha nge occ urr ed: D E F E N S E : . . . M r. P it ch ford is 1 9 , just turn ed 1 9 , I th ink , o r m ay b e 2 0
. I’m

g e tti n g o ld . D o e s a n y b o d y h e re w h o th in k s w h a t h a p p e n e d to you, i f anythi ng, ordur i ng your l i f et i m e bef or e you gotchar ged w i th a cr i m e s houl d notc ounti n de ci di ng w hetheryou r ece i ve l i f e ordeath? S T A T E : Y o u r H o n o r, I object ag ain b ec au se w e are ge tt ing i n to the jury

d e c id in g o n m iti g a to rs a n d a g g ra v a to rs a t th is p o in t. A n d th is is d efinit ely n o t pro p er. ¶42
. T he t ri al j ud ge i nform ed P i t chford’s coun sel that, w hil e he w ou l d b e al l ow ed t o ask ques t i ons as t o w hetherthe j ur or s w oul d be abl e t o cons i derthe mi t i gat i ng f act or s pr es ent edFoster v. St ate , 639 So. 2d 1263, 1274 (Miss. 1994) (quoti ng Morgan , 5 04 U. S. at 7 29 ). 21 55 0 U .S . 2 33 , 1 27 S. Ct . 1 65 4, 16 7 L. Ed . 2 d 5 85 (20 07 ). 22 532 U.S. 782, 121 S. Ct. 1910, 150 L. Ed. 2d 9 (20 01 ). 23 54 2 U .S . 2 74 , 1 24 S. Ct . 2 56 2, 15 9 L. Ed . 2 d 3 84 (20 04 ). 24 55 0 U .S . 2 97 , 1 27 S. Ct . 1 68 6, 16 7 L . Ed . 2 d 6 32 (20 07 ). 25 16 8 F . 3 d 1 73 , 1 82 -83 (5t h C ir. 19 99 ). 26 

### 15 by the court , he w oul d notbe al l ow ed t o ge ti nt o s peci f i cs . Pi t chf

or d’ s couns el r es ponded, “I cert ai nl y don’ ti nt end t o do that , ” and c ont i nued hi s voi rdi r e of the j ury. ¶43. V oi rdi r e of

a j ury “ i s c onduct ed under the s upervi s i on of the court , and a gr eatdeal
m us t , of nece s s i ty, be l ef

tt o i t s s ound di s cr et i on. ” Pi t chf or d now ar gues thati tw as err or 21 f orthe tr i al co urtto pr ecl ude hi s ques t i ons conce rni ng the ki nds of m i t i gat i on evi dence he pl anned t o i ntr oduce. ¶4 4
. P i t chford ci t es no au tho ri ty d i rect l y su p p o rt ing this pro p o sit ion
. H e c i t es A b du l-K a b ir
v. Q uarterm an , P enr

y v. Johnson , T

ennard v. D r ake , and Sm ith v. T exas , eac h of 22 23 24 25
w hi ch i s i nappos i t e. A l though t hes e ca s es di s cus s the type of mi t i gat i on e vi dence thatm ay be pr es ent ed t o a j ury and how i ts houl d be i ns truct ed f ors ent enci ng, they s ay nothi ng of t he def endant ’ s r i ghtt o conductvoi rdi r e. ¶45. I n T

r evino v. Johnson , th e U n ited S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e F ifth C irc u it 26 addr es s ed an a r gum ental m os ti dent i cal t o the one pr es ent ed by Pi t chf or d. T he C our ts t at ed: T rev ino
. . . arg u es that the tri al c o u rterred in refu sing to allow h im to inq u ir e d u rin g v o ir d ire w h e th e r th re e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs w e re a b le to c o n sid e r y o u th as a pot ent i al l y m i t i gat i ng fact or . T r evi no cont ends thatyouth i s a " r el evant m i t i gati ng f

act or of gr eatw ei gh t , " E ddin gs v. Ok la h o ma , 455 U
. S. 104, 116, 1 0 2 S
. C t. 8 6 9 , 7 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 (19 8 2 ), an d that u n d er Mo rg a n v. Illin o is , 504 U
. S. 71 9, 112 S. C t . 2222, 119 L
. E d. 2d 492 ( 1992) , the tr i al court ' s r ef us alId
. 27 

### 16 t o all ow him t o q uest i on the jur ors r egardi ng yo uth vi olat ed h i s due p rocess ri gh t s.

. . . T h is c irc u it h a s p re v io u sly sta ted th a t Mor ga n o n ly "i nvol ves the narr ow q u e stio n o f w h e th e r, in a c a p ital c a se , jur o rs m u st b e a sk e d w h e th e r th e y w o u ld a u to m a tic a ll y im p o s e th e d e a th p e n a lty u p o n c o n v ic tio n o f t h e d e fe n d a n t." U nited States v. G r eer , 968 F. 2d 433, 437 n. 7 ( 5th C i r . 1992) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o U nited States v. McV

ei gh , 153 F. 3d 1166, 1 2 0 8 (1 0 th C ir.1 9 9 8 ) (" [W ]e h a v e h e ld th a t Mor gan d o es n o t r eq u ir e a co u rt t o all ow qu est i on s r egardi ng ho w a j uror w ou l d v ote duri ng the p enalty p hase i f pr es ent ed w i th s peci f

i c mi t i gat i ng f

act or s . O thercourt s have i s s ued s i m i l ar ru lin g s, h o ld in g th a t Mor gan d o e s n o t re q u ire q u e stio n in g a b o u t sp e c ific m iti g a tin g o r a g g ra v a tin g f a c to rs." ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ); U nited States v. McC ullah , 7 6 F .3 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 1 1 3 (1 0 th C ir.1 9 9 6 ) (f in d in g th a t Mor

gan o n ly re q u ire s q u e stio n in g d u rin g v o ir d ire re g a rd in g w h e th e r ju ro rs w o u ld a u to m a tica lly im p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty , an d it d o e s n o t re q u ire sp e c ific qu e s t i on i ng r e ga r di ng m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s ) , ce r t . de ni e d, 52 0 U. S. 12 13 , 11 7 S. C t. 1 6 9 9 , 1 3 7 L . E d . 2 d 8 2 5 (1 9 9 7 ); U nited States v. T

i pton , 90 F. 3d 861, 879 (4 th C ir
. 19 9 6 ) ( fi n d ing i t w as n o t an ab u se o f th e tr ial co u rt ' s discretion to re fu se to a llo w d e taile d q u e stio n in g d u rin g v o ir d ire c o n c e rn in g sp e c ific m i t i gati ng fac t or s ) , cert . deni ed, 520 U
. S. 1253, 117 S. C t . 2414, 138 L
. E d. 2d 179 ( 1997) , a nd c ert . de ni ed, 520 U
. S. 1253, 117 S. C t . 2414, 138 L
. E d. 2d 179 ( 1997) , and ce r t . deni ed, 520 U
. S. 1253, 117 S. C t . 2414, 138 L
. E d. 2d 17 9 (199 7). A ft er appl ying the A E D P A -m and at ed st and ard of r eview t o these s t at e- courtf

i ndi ngs and concl us i ons , w e ca nnots ay thatT r evi no has m ade a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f t h e d e n ia l o f a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t o n th is is s u e . W e ther ef or e decl i ne t o i s s ue Tre vi no a [ cert i f i cat e of appea l abi l i ty] on thi s i s s ue. 27 ¶4 6
. W e a g ree w ith this in ter p retati o n o f Mor gan , th a t is, a trial c o u rt is n o t re q u ire d to
a llo w q u e stio n s re g a rd in g h o w a ju ro r w o u ld v o te d u rin g th e p e n a lty p h a se , if p re se n ted w ith sp ec if ic m it igating fac tors. T h u s, w e find n o m eritin this assign m en t of erro r. II
. W H E T H E R T H E T R IA L C O U R T D E N IE D D E F E N D A N T H IS CONS TI TUT I ONAL RI GHT T O P RE S EN T A F UL L, COM P LE TE AND ADEQ UA TELY DEVELOPED DEFENS E AND/ OR TO H AVE H I S CO UNSEL R EN D ER C O N STITU TIO N A L L Y E F F E C T I V E A SSI STA N C E IN D O I N G SOSt ack v . S tat e , 8 60 So . 2 d 6 87 , 6 91 -92 (Mi ss. 20 03 ). 28Si mmo nsv. St

ate , 8 05 So . 2 d 4 52 , 4 84 (Mi ss. 20 02 ). 29 The transcr ipt err oneously label s this hearing as having occurre d on January 9, 2006. 30 

### 17 ¶47. U nderthi s a s s i gnm ent of err or, P i t chford argues he sho uld have been gr ant ed cont i nuance s , and thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n r ef us i ng t o del ay the sentenci ng pr ocee di ngs
s o thata nec es s ary m i t i gat i on w i tnes s coul d be pr es entt o t es t i f y. A
. C ont i nuance s ¶ 4 8
. W e u se a n a b u se -o f-d isc re tio n sta n d a rd in re v iew in g a trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to g ra n t,
o r refuse to g ran t, a c o n ti n u an ce . W e w ill re v e rse a tr ial co u rt ’s de cisi o n o n ly w h ere 28
m a n ife st in

ju stic e w o u ld re su lt. 29 Januar y 19 , 2006 , r eques tf

orcont i nuance – i nef

f ect i ve as s is tance of

couns el 30 ¶4 9. I n M ar ch, 2 00 4, the tr i a l c ou r ta pp oi nt e d Ray Baum t o r e pr e s e ntPi t chf or d. R ay C art erj oi ned the def

ens e t eam i n J une 2005. T he tr i al , w hi ch or i gi nal l y w as s etf orJ ul y 13, 2005, w as r es chedul ed t o begi n on J anuary 9, 2006, and then cont i nued aga i n t o begi n on February 6, 2006. ¶50. Pi t chf

or d f i l ed a m oti on foryet anot her con t i nu ance, a l l egi ng in tera lia th a t h is
a tto rn e y s n e e d e d still m o re ti m e to in ter v iew m e m b e rs o f h is fa m ily w h o liv e d in C a lifo rn ia
a s p o ss ib le m iti g a tio n w itn e ss e s. P itch fo rd ’s c o u n se l ar g u e d th e y n e e d e d m o re tim e to
a n a ly z e h is p sy c h ia tric e v a lu a tio n , w h ich h a d b e e n p e rfo rm e d a t th e M iss iss ip p i S tate H os pi t al i n W hi t f

i el d. O n J anuary 19, 2006, the tr i al courtdeni ed the mot i on. ¶ 5 1
. P itch fo rd n o w a rg u e s th a t h is fa ilu re to o b tain th e c o n tin u a n c e c a u se d h is c o u n se l to
r enderi nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el t hr oughoutt he t r i al
. H e ar gues t hat“t he r es ul tof t heLynch v . S tat e , 951 So. 2d 549, 551-52 (Miss. 20 07 ) ( quoting Read v. St ate , 430 So. 2d 31 832, 838 (Miss. 1982)
. 

### 18 deni al of the cont i nuance c om es i n the cumul at i ve ef f ectof numer ous l es s erw eakne s s es t hat
an att orney w oul d ha ve i f he ha d notbeen r equi r ed by err oneous tr i al courtrul i ngs t o m ake H o b so n ’s ch o ices a b o u t ho w to alloca te his p rep ara ti o n . ” S p ec if icall y , he clai m s his fail u re t o obt ai n a cont i nuance r es ul t ed i n the f ol l ow i ng i ns t ance s of

i nef fect i ve t r i al couns el : ( 1) hi s couns el w as unpr epar ed t o begi n hi s openi ng s t at ement ; ( 2) hi s couns el w as di s or gani zed atthe gui l t - phas e j ury- i ns truct i on conf er ence ; ( 3) hi s couns el f ai l ed t o obj ectt o l eadi ng ques t i ons by the St at e. Pi t chf or d a l s o a r gues that , a s a r es ul tof the l ack of

the cont i nuance , he w as unabl e t o have hi s ow n expertanal yze a co ur t - or der ed ps ychi atr i c eva l uat i on f r om the M i s s i s s i ppi St at e H os pi t al atW hi t f i e l d, a ndhi s c ouns el w as unabl e t o i nt ervi ew w i tnes s es f r om hi s pat ernal f

ami l y i n C al i f

orni a. H e cl ai m s thes e f ami l y m ember s m i gh th ave been abl e t o contr i but e t o hi s m i t i gat i on def ens e. ¶5 2
. P it ch ford w as rep rese n ted at tr ial b y three att o rne y s: R ay B au m , R ay C h arles C arter,
a n d A liso n S tein e r. C a rte r an d S tein e r co n tin u e to re p re se n t P itch fo rd o n th is d ire c t ap p e a l. T hi s C our thas s t at ed that“i ti s abs urd t o fant asi ze that[ a] l aw yerm i ghtef f ect i vel y or
e th i c a l l y l i t i g a t e th e i s s u e o f h i s o wn i n e f

f e c t i v e n e s s . ” Al s o , b e c a u s e mo s to f th e s e c l a i ms 31 of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el ne ces s ar i l y w i l l i nvol ve evi dence out s i de the r ecor d, t hey
are m o re a p p rop ri ately p rese n ted in a p eti ti o n for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef. ¶53. So f

or thes e r eas ons , w e decl i ne t o addr es s Pi t chfor d’s i ss ues i nvol vi ng i nef f ect i ve
a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, bu t h o ld th a t h e m a y b rin g th e m in a p ro p e rly -file d p e tit io n fo r p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef

. H ow ever , w i thoutf

or ecl os i ng Pi t chf

or d’ s r i ghtt o r ai s e the i s s ue ofSee e.g. Ru ffi n v . S tat e , 9 92 So . 2 d 1 16 5, 11 75 (Mi ss. 20 08 ). 32 

### 19 in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l in a su b se q u e n t p o st-c o n v ictio n -re lief p ro c e e d in g , w e sh a ll ad d ress P it c h fo rd’s c lai m that the tri al j u d g e a b u sed h is discreti o n b y d en y ing the J an u ary 19 m ot i on f

ora cont i nuance . ¶5 4
. A s o f th e tri al da te, R ay B au m h ad serv ed a s P it ch ford ’s c o u n sel fo r m o re tha n a y ea r,
a n d R ay C arter ha d b ee n w o rkin g o n the c ase for m o re tha n eigh t m o n ths. I n ca ses w h ere
c o u n se l h a d e v e n les s tim e to p re p a re , w e f o u n d n o e rro r o n sim ilar c laim s. S o w e h o ld 32 t oday thatthe tr i al j udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on by denyi ng Pi t chf or d’ s m ot i on f

or cont i nuance . U na vailab l e m i t iga t i on expert ¶55. Pi t chf

or d’ s s econd ar gum ent i s that , even though no cont i nuance w as r eques t ed, t he tr i al courtcomm i t t ed pl ai n err orby f ai l i ng t o cont i nue the begi nni ng of t he penal ty phas e. P rio r to th e sta rt o f th e p e n a lty p h a se o f th e tria l, P itch fo rd re tain e d th e se rv ice s o f a m e n talheal th expert , D r . R ahn B ai l ey. H ow ever , D r . B ai l ey, w ho w as unders ubpoena f ora tr i al i n T exas , w as notavai l abl e t o t es t i f y atthe s t artof

the pena l ty phas e on February 8, 2006. C o u n se l fo r P itch fo rd c o n tac ted th e trial ju d g e a n d a d v ise d h im o f th e s c h e d u lin g c o n flict. T he tr i al j udge ca l l ed the courti n Texas and conf i r m ed thatD r . B ai l ey w as unders ubpoena ther e. T he f

ol l ow i ng m orni ng, Pi t chf or d’ s couns el advi s ed the courtthatD r . B ai l ey w as avai l abl e butthathe w oul d notbe ca l l ed t o t es t i f y. ¶56. Pi t chf

or d now a r gues that“ al though ther e w as no expr es s r eques tf ora cont i nuance
m ade .
. . the tr i al courtw as m ade ful l y aw are thatthe D ef endantdes i r ed t o pr es entt he t es t i m ony of

D r . R ahn B ai l ey, ” and the f ai l ur e of t he t r i al cour tt o cont i nue t he tr i al amount edMcC urdy v. St ate , 5 11 So . 2 d 1 48 , 1 50 (Mi ss. 19 87 ). 33 Go od in v. St ate , 787 So. 2d 639, 645 (Miss. 2001) ( citing Acevedov. St ate , 467 So. 2d 220, 34 22 6 (M iss . 1 98 5))
. 

### 20 to p lai n erro r be ca u se o f th e p rejud ice tha t Pit ch ford ’s d efe n se su ffered from the lac k D r. B ai l ey’ s t es t i m ony. ¶57. T hi s ar gum ent i s f r i vol ous and w i thout m er i t . T he tr i al court cannot be hel d t o erron an i s s ue notpr es ent ed t o i tf ordeci s i on. C ouns el notonl y f ai l ed t o as k f

ora cont i nuance , 33 he advi sed the tr i al courtthatt he w i tnes s w as avai l abl e, butw oul d notbe ca l l ed t o t es t i f y. A tr i al courthas no duty t o s ua s pont e s econd- gues s de ci s i ons by def ens e couns el
. Thi s i s s ue h a s n o m e rit. I I I . P ROS EC UT ORI AL M I S CONDUCT ¶ 5 8
. P itch fo rd n e x t c laim s th e p ro se c u to r e n g a g e d in m isc o n d u c t th a t d e p riv e d h im o f h is
r i ght s unde rthe Fi f

th, Si xth, Ei ghth, a nd Four t eenth A m endment s t o the U nit ed S t at es C o n stitu tio n a n d A rticle 3 , S e c tio n s 1 4 , 2 6 , an d 2 8 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n . T h is C our thas s t at ed that , “ W her e pr os ecut or i al m i s conductendange r s the f ai rnes s of

a tr i al and th e im p a rt ia l a d m in is tr a tio n o f j u s tic e , re v e rs a l m u s t f o llo w .” 34 ¶59. Pi t chf

or d ar gues the pr os ecut or i nt ent i onal l y vi ol at ed the R ul es of E vi dence i n or der to p re se n t m isle a d in g o r in fla m m a to ry e v id e n c e to th e ju ry , an d m a d e im p ro p e r a p p e a ls to the j ury a tboth the gui l ta nd s ent enci ng pha s es of the tr i al
. Pi t chf

or d a l s o cl ai m s t he pr os ecut orus ed nea r - l eadi ng orm i s l eadi ng ques t i ons on i t s ow n w i t ness es , coac hed
w itn e s s e s , in ter

jec ted in fo rm a tio n in to th e re sp o n se s fr o m w itn e ss e s, a n d re ste d its

### 21

arg u m en ts on fac ts no t in e v id e n c e o r i n feren ce s too att en u ated from the fa cts w h ich w ere i n evi dence
. ¶60. T he St at e ar gues that Pi t chf or d di d not obj ect t o thes e al l eged i m pr opr i et i es at tr i al or i n hi s m ot i on fora new t r i al
. T hus , t he St at e ar gues , the cl ai m s ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed on d ire c t ap p e a l. W h ile P itch fo rd ad m its n o co n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n s w e re m a d e , h e p o in ts
o u t th at his m o ti o n for a n ew tr ial inclu d ed the fo ll o w ing assig n m en t of erro r: T h e C o u rt a llo w e d th e d istric t atto rn e y to im p ro p e rly arg u e d u rin g th e p e n a lty phas e c l os i ng tha tthe i rj ob w a s t o g o b a c k the r e a nd vo t e f orthe de a th o ver def endant ’ s obj ect i on. ¶ 6 1
. E v e n h a d h e n o t i n c lu d e d this it e m in h is m o tio n fo r a n e w tria l, P itc h fo rd c lea rly obj ect ed t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s “i n t he box” com m ent s att r i al
. P i t chf or d al s o obj ect ed attr i al t o the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s thatW al t erD avi s and hi s s on m ay have been ki l l ed i f they had
arr i ved att he st or e any ea r l i er ; the pr os ecut or ’ s ques t i oni ng of D om i ni que H ogan as t o t he
n ature of he r r elati o n sh ip w ith P it ch ford ; an d th e p rose cu tor’s qu esti o n ing o f P itch ford ’s
s i s t e ra bo utthe “ pr ob l e ms he g oti n a ts c ho ol ” a nd the t i me f r a me o f h i s f a the r ’ s i l l ne s s . So P itch fo rd p ro p e rly p re se rv e d th e se a lleg a tio n s o f m isc o n d u c t fo r a p p e a l. ¶62. Pi t chf

or d ar gues the prosecutorm i sr epresent ed t he fact s i n cl os i ng ar gum ent by
s ugges t i ng t hatB ul l i ns vol unt ar i l y turned hi m s el f i n and conf

es s ed, and thatPi t chf

or d w as the man w ho f

i r ed the s hot s w hi ch ki l l ed t he dec edent
. Speci f i cal l y, the pr os ecut ors t at ed t o the j ury: “[ B ul l i ns ] w entt o the s her i f f’ s de part m entthe s ame m orni ng of the m ur derand he admi t t ed i t . ” A ccor di ng t o the r ecor d, how ever , I nves t i gat orC onl ey t es t i f i ed onl y thathe “t al ked t o” B ul l i ns . W hi l e ar guabl y i ncons i s t entw i th t he f act s , the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement di d notri s e t o t he l evel neces s ary t o “[ endange r ] the f ai rnes s of

[ the] tr i al and the i m part i al447 So. 2d at 645. 35 

### 22 admi ni s tr at i on of

j us t i ce, ” as r equi r ed by G o o din
. T hus, thi s as s i gnm entof err orhas no 35
m e rit. ¶6 3. Pi t chf

or d al s o com pl ai ns t hatt he pr os ecut ori m pr oper l y s t a t e d d ur i ng cl os i ng
ar gum ent s that [P itch fo rd a n d B u lli n s] b o th sh o t [B ritt] . It d o e sn ’t m a tter w h ich o n e s h o t w ith w h ich g u n . T h a t h a sn ’t g o t an y th in g to d o w ith th is c a se . I th in k b e c a u se it w a s h is .2 2 , h e p ro b a b ly h a d it b u t th a t d o e sn ’t m a tter. A ll w e h a v e g o t to p r o v e i s th a tth e y we n ti n th a ts t o r e t o g e th e rt o r o b i ta n d th e y k i l l e d h i m. ¶64. Pi t chf

or d c l ai m s be cause t he st at em ent – he “p robably” had t he . 22 – h as no evi dent i ary bas i s i n the r ecor d, thi s c ons t i tut es i m pr opervouchi ng f ors ni t ch w i tnes s es . B ut the tr i al judge prope r l y i ns truct ed the j ury as t o acc om pl i ce l i abi l i ty, and w e f i nd t he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ementw as notout s i de hi s theory of acc om pl i ce l i abi l i ty. So t hi s al l egat i on
o f m isc o n d u c t h a s n o m e rit. ¶65. Pi t chf

or d next poi nt s out that the pr os ecut or s t epped out s i de the bounds of evi dence
w hen he ar gued thatthe gun f ound i n Pi t chf

or d’ s c arw as Bri t t ’ s gun. B utM arvi n Ful l w ood t es t i f i ed thathe had gi ven B r i t tt hatexactgun appr oxi m at el y tw o year s bef or e the tr i al
. A l s o, I nves t i gat orC onl ey t es t i f i ed thathe had r ecove r ed the s ame gun f r om Pi t chf

or d’ s car , s o the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at em ent w as notout s i de the bounds of evi dence , and thi s al l egat i on of
m isc o n d u c t h a s n o m e rit. ¶66. Pi t chf

or d a r gues he i s ent i t l ed t o a r ever s al of hi s c onvi ct i on be caus e the pr os ecut or p roc lai m ed to the jury d u ri n g clos ing arg u m en t th at P it ch ford w as a “h ab itu al l iar. ” P it ch ford
ar gues the s t at ementi m perm i s s i bl y s poke t o hi s gener al char act erand w as an i ndi r ect

### 23

c o m m e n t o n h is fa ilu re to tes tify , v io latin g h is F ifth -A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. In its b rie f, th e S tate
res po nd s: D ur i ng hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent , P i t chf or d .
. . at t acke d t he pr os ecut i on w i tnes s es ext ens i vel y as l i ar s and [ of f er ed] t es t i m ony they coul d notbe trus t ed orr el i ed upon. T he def

ens e att ack on the hones ty of the pr os ecut i on w i tnes s es i nvi t ed the re sp o n se ten d ere d b y the p rose cu ti o n an d w as n o t error. T h e S tate ’s “ if P itch fo rd d id it, w e c a n d o it” a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e rit. ¶67. Fi r s t , r egar dl es s of w hethere i therpa r ty “ opened the door , ” Pi t chf or d’ s couns el had
e ve ry r i gh tt o a t t a c k a nd q ue s t i on the c r e di bi l i ty of wi tne s s e s who h a d t e s t i f i e d f ort he pr os ecut i on. Pi t chf

or d di d nott es t i f

y attr i al , and had he notgi ven s t at ement s t o pol i ce on N ov em ber 7 a nd 8 , 2 00 4, P i t chford’s argum ent m i gh ti nd eed h ave m eri t . H ow ever, becau se h is st atem en ts t o p o li ce w ere b efo re the jury , the p rose cu tor’s a ttac k o n P it ch ford ’s
cr edi bi l i ty w as noti nappr opr i at e. ¶68. Pi t chford argue s t he prosecutorsho uld no th ave al l uded t o the pos s i bi l i ty that Pi t chf or d m i ghthave ki l l ed W al t erD avi s and hi s s on, had they arr i ved on t he s cene r i ght
a fte r t h e m u rd e r w h ile P itch fo rd w a s s til l in th e sto re . P itch fo rd c h a ra c ter ize s th is
s pecul at i on as an att empt t o i nci t e pr ej udi ce a nd f eari n the j ury. ¶ 6 9
. A c c o rd in g to th e re c o rd , the fo llo w in g e x c h a n g e to o k p lac e d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t: Mr
. E v a n s : T h e Da v i s ’ s wa l k e d i n t h e r e a t7 : 2 7
. W e wo u l d o f h a d two

m or e dea d peopl e – M r. C a rte r: Y o u r H o n o r, I o b jec t to th a t. M r. E v an s:
– if

h e h ad w alke d in the re e arli er. M r. C a rte r: Y o u r H o n o r, h o w c a n – h e c a n n o t sa y th a t. M r . E vans : Y our H onor , that i s s om ethi ng that the j ury can cl ear l y s ee f r om the fact s. T he C ou rt : H e can m ake thi ng s tha t are rea so n ab le infere nces an d h as a

rig h t to c o m m e n t o n th e e v id e n c e a s h e se e s a re a so n a b leRu bens tei n v . S tat e , 9 41 So . 2 d 7 35 , 7 79 (Mi ss. 20 06 ). 36 Ta te v . S tat e , 912 So. 2d 919, 926 (Miss. 2005) ( quotingBu rn sid e v. St ate , 88 2 S o. 2d 37 21 2, 21 6 (M iss . 2 00 4))
. 

### 24

i nfer ence to be. A nd i t ’s up t o the j ury t o d eterm i ne the f act s. So I ’ l l overrul e the obj ect i on. ¶70. T hi s C our tha s he l d thatthe cl os i ng ar gum ent s m ay i ncl ude i nf er ence s dr aw n f

r om the evi dence pr es ent ed. H ow ever , the f actthata pa r t i cul ari nf

er ence may be dr aw n f

r om the 36
e v id e n c e d o e s n o t per se sugges tt hatt he i nf er ence s prope r l y m ay be pr es ent ed t o the j ur y. R u b e n ste in d o e s n o t sta n d fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a p ro se c u to r m a y p re se n t in a p p ro p ria te i nf er ence s , even thos e thatf ai r l y m ay be dr aw n f

r om the evi dence
. ¶71. W hi l e one f

ai r l y m i ght i nf

er f r om the evi dence i n thi s cas e t hat – had t hey arr i ved
ear l i er– W al t erD avi s and hi s s on m i ghthave be en ki l l ed, thati nf er ence cert ai nly i s not admi s s i bl e i n the pr os ecut i on of P i t chfor d f

orthe murde rof

R euben Bri t t . A f

t er - the- f act sp ec u lat ion as to w h ethe r P it ch ford m igh t or m igh t n o t h av e c o m m itted a d d it ion al m u rde rs i s no evi dence w hat s oeveri n the pr os ecut i on of thi s case. T he tr i al j udge s houl d have
s us t ai ned the obj ect i on t o the pr os ecut or ’ s i nappr opr i at e s t at ement . H ow ever , i n the cont ext
o f th is c a se , w ith th e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f g u iltp re se n ted to th e ju ry , w e fin d th is in a p p ro p ria te s tate m e n t, an d th e trial ju d g e ’s in c o rre c t ru lin g , to b e h a rm les s e rro r. T h is C o u rt w ill d e e m h a rm les s a n e rro r w h e re “ th e sa m e re su lt w o u ld h a v e b e e n re a c h e d h a d [it ]
n o t e x is te d .” 37 ¶72. Pi t chf

or d compl ai ns that , dur i ng the penal ty phas e, the pr os ecut or as ked D om i ni que H ogan, the m otherof

Pi t chf or d’ s c hi l d: “ I s n’ ti ta f

actthaty’ al l w er e doi ng a l otof f i ght i ng?” H ogan ans w er ed i n the nega t i ve. T he pr os ecut orthen as ked, “W er e y’ al l goi ng w i th ot her787 So. 2d at 645. 38 

### 25 peopl e atthe t i m e?” A gai n, H ogan ans w er ed i n the nega t i ve. Pi t chf or d’ s couns el obj ect ed,
s t at i ng the pr os ecut i on had no bas i s foraski ng such ques t i ons . T he t r i al j udge r equi r ed the pr os e c ut ort o d e mons tr a t e a go od
- f a i th b a s i s f

ora s ki ng the qu e s t i on s . The pr os ecut or pr oduced Pi t chf

or d’ s ps ychol ogi cal eval uat i on, w hi ch pr ovi ded t he good- f ai th basi s f

orthe ques t i on. B eca us e the pr os ecut ordem ons tr at ed a good- f ai th bas i s f

orthe ques t i ons , and f ur ther , beca us e Pi t chf

or d s how s no endange r m entof the tr i al ’ s f

ai rness as r equi r ed by G o o din , th is a lleg a tio n o f m isc o n d u c t h a s n o m e rit.

38 ¶73
. T h e p rose cu tor cross -exam i ned Pi t chford ’s si ster an d m o ther a b o u t P it ch ford ’s behavi oras a chi l d and yout h. Pi t chf or d compl ai ns that , dur i ng the cr os s - exami nat i on they t es t i f i ed t o pr i orbad ac t s . H ow ever , hi s s i s t ert es t i f i ed on di r ectthats he w oul d r ece i ve phone ca l l s f

r om t eac her s w hen he “ goti n tr oubl e” a ts chool
. F urt herm or e, hi s m ot her tes tified th a t, afte r h is fa th e r’s d e a th , P itc h fo rd “ s ta rte d h a v in g p ro b lem s a t sc h o o l.” B o th
w itn e ss e s o p e n e d th e d o o r a s to th e n a tu re o f th e p ro b lem s P itch fo rd h a d a t sc h o o l, so th is
a lleg a tio n o f m isc o n d u c t h a s n o m e rit. ¶7 4
. P it ch ford claim s that the p rose cu tor

– w h en q u esti o n ing h is sist er ab o u t their father’s death – m ade inapp ropri at e, i nfl am m at ory rem arks, as f oll ow s: Q : N o w , y o u sa id it w a s h a rd o n h im b e c a u se h is d a d d y o n ly h a d a b o u t a m onth bef

or e he di ed. A : Y eah. Y es. Y es. Q : O kay. A tl eas the di d have a m onth, di dn' the? A : Y es , he di d. Q : T hati s bett erthan s om ebody j us tbe i ng m ur der ed and thei rf ami l y not

–Fu sel ier v. St ate , 4 68 So . 2 d 4 5, 53 (Mi ss. 19 85 ). 39 Mis s. Co deAnn. § 9 9-1 9-1 05 (5) (h) (Rev . 2 00 7). 40 

### 26 M r . Car t e r : Y ourH onor , tha ti s a n a bs ol ut e l y i m pr operques t i on and he

k n o w s it. T h e C o u rt : I'll o v e rr u le th e o b je c tio n . . . . Q : H i m havi ng abouta mont h bef or e hi s daddy di ed i s a l otbett erthan a f a mi l y th a td o e s n ' th a v e a n y t i me , th a tf a mi l y m e mb e ri s j u s ts h o td o wn a n d m u rd e re d , isn ' t it ? A : I agr ee. ¶75. Pi t chf

or d ci t es num er ous cas es i n supportof hi s ar gum entt hatt hes e s t at ement s had an inf l am m at ory eff

ect . T he crux of theirho l dings can b e sum m ed u p as fol l ow s: T her e can be no gr averpr ocee di ng than w hen a human bei ng i s puton tr i al f or hi s orherl i f

e. T he r i ghtt o a f

ai rtr i al i ncl udes the r i ghtt o a ver di ctbas ed on the evi dence and notextr aneous pr ej udi ci al happeni ngs i n and ar ound the c o u r tr o o m. 39 ¶76. T he St at e r es ponds t o thi s i s s ue m i ni m al l y, ar gui ng onl y that Pi t chf or d’ s obj ect i on at trial w a s to o g e n e ra l. W e fin d th e p ro se c u to r’s q u e stio n w a s a n im p ro p e r a ttem p t to in c ite the j ur or s ’ emot i ons and ange r . I thad no p roper basi s , and the obj ect i on t o the ques t i on
s houl d have be en s us t ai ned. H ow ever , w e f i nd the ans w ert o the ques t i on w as both obvi ous and al ready k no w n to the jur ors. T hu s, w e fi nd the err or w as harm l ess. ¶7 7. Pi t chf

or d nextcl ai m s t he pr os ecut ori ns truc t e d the j ury t o c on s i de rthe “ he i nous atr oci ous , and cruel ” aggr avatordur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e w i thoutthe pr operl i m i t i ng i ns truct i on orevi dent i ary s uppor t . M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 101( 5) ( h) al l ow s t he hei nous , atr oci ous , orcruel natur e of the cr i m e t o be cons i der ed as an aggr avat i ng ci rcum st ance. T he com plai ned -of l ang uag e duri ng the prosecuti on ’s cl osi ng i s as f oll ow s: 40

### 27

Y ’ al l s aw the aut ops y phot ogr aphs
. T her e i s notm uch of a pl ace thatyou c o u ld to u c h o n h is b o d y th a t d id n ’t h a v e so m e g u n sh o t w o u n d o n it. B ru tal. T h is is th e u lti m a te c rim e . T h is is th e ty p e o f c rim e th a t th e d e a th p e n a lty is f or . T hi s i s the type of

per s on thatthe dea th penal ty i s f or , s om ebody that c o u ld c o m m it a c rim e lik e th a t. T he pr os ecut orm ade thi s s t at em ent i n the cour s e of des cr i bi ng the eve nt s s urr oundi ng the
cr i m e, as they happe ned. I m m edi at el y pr i ort o thes e s t at ement s , the pr os ecut ordes cr i bed P i t chford’s previ ou sl y-thw art ed att em pt t o rob the st o re, an d i m m ediat el y fol l ow i ng t hese
s t at ement s , he di s cus s ed t es t i m ony w hi ch had r evea l ed thatthe de cedenthad pl eade d f or
m e rc y b e fo re b e in g k ill e d . W e fin d th e p ro se c u to r’s sta tem e n t w a s n o t a c a ll fo r th e ju ry to
cons i derthe h ei nous, atr oci ous , and cruel natur e of the cr i m e as an aggr avat i ng f act or , but
r atherw as partof

the “s t ory” of

the cr i m e as the St at e per cei ved i t . S o t his al l egat i on of
m isc o n d u c t h a s n o m e rit. ¶78. Pi t chf

or d cl ai m s the pr os ecut or i ns truct ed the j ury that they w er e “i n the box” t o gi ve Pi t chf or d the death pe nal ty. Pi t chf or d m i s char act er i zes the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement s dur i ng cl osi ng argum ent. T he co m plai ned -of exch ang e i s as f

oll ow s: I am notgoi ng t o m i nce w or ds w i th you up her e. I am goi ng t o t el l you j us tl i ke I t ol d you on voi rdi r e. I am aski ng f orthe dea th penal ty beca us e the ul t i m at e cr i m e des erves the ul t i m at e puni s hm ent . T hati s w hatw e have got her e. I am n o t go ing to situ p h ere an d q u o te the B ible.
. . . I th ink itis ab su rd to situ p h ere an d try to co n fuse y’all w ith th at. Y ’all kn o w w h at yo u are h ere fo r. T h e law is c lea r in th is s tate . T h e d e a th p e n a lty is a n a p p ro p ria te p u n is h m e n t. I f you’ l l r emem ber , w hen y’ al l w er e s i t t i ng outhe r e, I as ked eve rybody i n the pane l – M r. C arter: Y o u r H o n o r, I o b ject. T h ey a re n o t he re to g ive d ea th. T h ey are h ere to d eli b era te a n d g o b ac k there an d m ak e a d ec isi o n o n li fe w i thoutpos s i bi l i ty of pa r ol e ordeath. T hey ar e n ot her e f or d ea th. .
. . T o say that is i m p rop er.

### 28

T h e C o u rt : M r. E v an s did n o t m ak e tha t co m m en t. S o I’ll a llo w h im to

pr ocee d w i th hi s ar gum ent . O verrul e the obj ect i on.

. . . . A s I t ol d y’ al l w hen y’ al l w er e s i t t i ng outher e, the i m por t antques t i on th a t I a sk e d y ’a ll ab o u t th a t w a s th is. A n d if a n y o f y ’a ll h a d a n sw e re d th is d iffe re n tly , y o u w o u ld n o t b e h e re b e c a u s e th is is a c a se w h e re th e d e a th penal ty i s a n appr opr i at e puni s hm ent . I f the l aw author i zes i m pos i t i on of the death penal ty and the f

act s j us t i f

y i t , coul d you gi ve the dea th pen al ty? A nd the o n ly on es tha t an sw ere d th at th ey co u ldn ’tare g o n e. T h ey a re n o t he re t oday. T he l aw author i zes i tbeca us e the j udge has i ns truct ed you thatthe l aw author i zes i t . T he f

act s j us t i f

y i tbeca us e you have hear d the f act s . Y ou have h e a rd th e tes tim o n y . Y o u ’v e se e n th e e v id e n c e . . . . T h e fa c ts ju stify th e d e a th penal ty i n t hi s cas e. T hes e cl os i ng r emar ks , r ead i n cont ext , cl ear l y demonstr at e thatthe pr os ecut ordi d not in stru c t th e jur y tha t th e y w e re the re o n ly to g iv e the d e a th p e n a lty
. In ste a d , h e u s e d h is
c lo sin g a rg u m e n t to p e rsu a d e the jur o rs th a t -- fro m the p ro sp e c tiv e o f th e S tate -- th e fa c ts and the l aw t ogetherj us t i f i ed i m pos i t i on of

the dea th penal t y, an d each of the j ur or s had i ndi cat ed that , i n an appr opr i at e ca s e, they coul d i m pos e the dea th penal ty. So t hi s al l egat i on
o f p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t h a s n o m e rit. ¶79. Pi t chf

or d next cl ai m s the pr os ecut or s “s ki r t ed thei r ethi cal obl i gat i ons t o s ee thatt he def endant[ w as ] acc or ded pr ocedur al j us t i ce, ” and he c l ai m s s uch pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct i s i ncur abl y pr ej udi ci al and r equi r es r ever s al of hi s s ent ence . H ow ever , as pr evi ous l y s t at ed, g iven the o v erw h elm ing e v id e n c e o f gu il t, the s tat em en ts w e find inap p rop ri ate w ere h a rm les s. T h u s, th is iss u e h a s n o m e rit. I V. I M P ROP ER DI S P LA YS OF EM OTI ON F ROM NONT ES TI F YI NG AUDI EN CE M EM BE RS

### 29

¶8 0. Pi t c hf

or d’ s n e xta s s i gn mento f e rr ori s tha tthe j ury w a s i mpr op e r l y i nf l uence d by di s pl ays of

emot i on f

r om the vi ct i m ’ s f

ami l y. H e cl ai m s tw o i nci dent s s erved t o pr ej udi ce hi s def ens e. ¶8 1. T he f

i r s ti nci dento c c urr e d f ol l ow i ng t he St at e’ s di r ectexami nat i on of J ames H a th c o c k . P itch fo rd ’s c o u n se l ap p ro a c h e d th e b e n c h a n d o b jec ted , cla im in g “ fa m ily
m ember s ar e i n t he back of t he cour tr oom cr yi ng outl oud, l oud enough foreverybody i n the
c o u rt ro o m to h e a r.” T h e tr ia l j u d g e s ta te d , “ T h e re h a v e b e e n n o o u tb u rs ts o f a n y k in d
. . . . I have he ar d s om e s ni f

f l i ng goi ng on . . . , ” w hi ch he c om par ed t o s ni f f l i ng as i f one had a cold. P i t chford’s cou nsel co ncluded the di scussi on w i th: “W el l , Y ou r H on or, w e w ou l d just
a sk if it be c o m e s a n y w o rse th a n it is th a t th e C o u rt ex c u se the jur y tem p o ra rily a n d ju st te ll th e fa m ily th a t th e y s h o u ld c o n tr o l it to th e e x te n t th e y c a n .” ¶82. T he s econd i nci dent occurr ed dur i ng the penal ty phas e of the tr i al
. D ef ens e couns el ap p roa ch ed the b en ch an d info rm ed the tri al j u d g e tha t som e m em b ers o f th e a u d ienc e w ere talk in g d u rin g q u e stio n in g . S p e c ifica lly , d e fe n se co u n se l cla im e d tha t – a fte r h e o b jec ted to
a q u e stio n a s im p ro p e r – so m e o n e in th e a u d ien c e sa id “ n o , itis n o t.” T h e tria l j u d g e sa id h e d id n o t h e a r a n y th in g b u t n e v e rth e les s a d m o n ish e d m e m b e rs o f th e a u d ien c e to re fra in f r om comm ent i ng orm aki ng any noi s e. ¶83. Pi t chford als o m akes a v agu e argu m ent, ci t i ng no s peci f i cs , thatthe St at e m ade i nf l amm at ory appea l s t o t he pas s i on of the j ury. W e f i nd the i nci dent s – t o the ext entt heySee e.g., Bell v . S tat e , 63 1 S o. 2d

81 7 (M iss. 1994) (nopre judiceaf ter m oth er o f v ictim 41 sh outed “H e co ld b loo de d kill ed

my c hil d”an d judg e g av e cu rativeins tru cti on). Q: Do you know what happened to those char ges or thatcase? You got any 42 ide a what ha

pp en ed on that? A: I was told itwas dropped. Q: Okay . Who tol d y ou that? A: Justin. The guy. Itwas him I was with. He stole $3,000 from his daddy. He gave me 500 of

it to shutmy mouth and like an idiot, I t ook. Q: That was dropped you sai d. A: Ye s, sir
. “A lth oughrel ev ant, e viden ce maybeex clude d if its prob ativeva lueis s ub stanti ally 43 outweighed by the dange r of unf air prejudice , confusion of the issues, or misleadi ng the jury, or by considerat ions of undue delay, waste of ti me, or needless present ation of cumulative evidence .” Miss. R. Evid. 403. 

### 30 a re d o c u m e n ted in th e re c o rd – w e re m in o r. F u rth e rm o re , P itch fo rd fa iled to re q u e st a
cur at i ve i ns truct i on t o t he j ury. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd no err orw i th thi s i s s ue. 41 V
. P ER M I TT I NG THE J URY T O HEAR I NF ORM ANT TE S TI M ONY ¶8 4. Pi t chf

or d’ s nex ta r gu e s the tr i a l c ou r ti mpr op e r l y a l l owed the t e s t i mony of J ames H athcock and D antr on M i t chel l , both of w hom had bee n i ncar cer at ed w i th Pi t chf or d. A lt ern ati v ely, he arg u es th at th e tri al co u rterred b y fail ing to g ive a req u ested ca u ti o n ary i ns truct i on conce r ni ng i nf or m antt es t i m ony. ¶85. H athcock and M i t chel l both t es t i f i ed thatPi t chf

or d ha d con fes sed his rol e i n t he
m u rd e r. T h e y a lso d e n ied re c e iv in g a n y p ro m is e s o r h o p e o f re w a rd in e x c h a n g e fo r th e ir t es t i m ony, al though char ges agai ns tH athcock e ventual l y w er e dr opped. 42 Tes t i m ony ¶86. Pi t chf

or d ar gues t he t es t i m ony of the j ai l hous e “s ni t ches ” s houl d have be en excl uded b e c a u s e “ e v i d e n c e f

r o m th e s e wi tn e s s e s wa s s o u n p r o b a t i v e a n d s o p r e j u d i c i a l th a tM i s s . R. E vi d. 403[ ] r equi r e[ d] i t s e xcl us i on. ” The St at e r es ponds thatPi t chf or d w ai ved thi s i s s ue 435 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 5 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). 44 8 7 S o . 6 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 2 1 ). 45McN ea l and Dedeaux , while comm enting on the unr eliable natur e of i nform ant test imony, 46 particul arly tes timony given in exchange for a reduc ed sent ence, do not provi de for a weighing process. W

a lk e r v . S ta te , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 9 8 , 2 2 7 (M iss
. 2 0 0 5 ) (a tri a l co u rt w ill n o t be h e ld in 47 erro r on a m att er n o t prese n ted to itfor d ec isi o n ). 

### 31 beca us e he f

ai l ed t o r ai s e i ti n t he tr i al c our t . Pi t chf or d r es ponds thathe di d r ai s e the i s s ue i n the tr i al courtby w ay of hi s pr etr i al mot i on t o excl ude the t es t i m ony as unr el i abl e under thi s C our t ’ s hol di ngs i n McN e a l v. S ta te , and D edea u x v. S tate . P i t chf or d s t at es “the 44 45
w ei ghi ng pr oces s r equi r ed by R ul e 403 i s no di f f er entf r om t hatr equi r ed under McN e al / D e de aux . ” W e di s agr ee.

46 ¶ 8 7
. T h e “ re liab ili ty o f tes tim o n y ” is un re late d to R u le 4 0 3 ' s b a lan c in g tes t. A c o m p lete ly tru e sta tem e n t m a y b e e x c lu d e d u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 if “ its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b sta n tially
o u tw eigh ed b y the d an g er o f un fair p rejud ice.” A lth o u g h P it ch ford did raise i n th e tri al co u rt th e iss u e o f re liab ili ty , h e d id n o t raise a R u le 4 0 3 o b jec tio n . T h u s, th e iss u e is p ro c e d u ra lly barr ed. 47 C aut i onar

y i ns tr uct i on ¶8 8
. P it ch ford n ex t arg u e s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d b y re fu sin g to issue a ca u ti o n ary i ns truct i on. H e r eques t ed the f ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on: I i ns tructyou thatthe l aw l ooks w i th s us pi ci on a nd di s trus ton the t es t i m ony of a w i tnes s w ho has act ed as an i nf or m antf orthe governm ent . T he l aw re q u ire s th e ju ry to w e ig h te stim o n y o f a n in fo rm a n t w ith g re a t ca re a n d w ith caut i on and w i th s us pi ci on.Gray v. St ate , 7 28 So . 2 d 3 6, 72 (Mi ss. 19 98 ). 48Ru bens tei

n v . S tat e , 9 41 So . 2 d 7 35 , 7 67 (Mi ss. 20 06 ); Ma nn in g v. St ate , 735 So. 2d 323, 49 33 5 (M iss . 1 99 9). Mo ore v. St

ate , 7 87 So . 2 d 1 28 2, 12 87 -88 (Mi ss. 20 01 ). 50 

### 32 A l though t he tr i al co urtd i d notgi ve the i ns truct i on r eques t ed by Pi t chf or d, i tdi d gi ve the f ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on: T he C ou rti nst ruct s the jury thatthe law l oo ks w i th g reatsuspi ci on and dis trust on the t es t i m ony of

a n a l l eged acc om pl i ce ori nf or m ant . T he l aw r equi r es the j ury w ei gh the t es t i m ony of an al l eged acc om pl i ce ori nf or m antw i th gr eat car e, caut i on and s us pi ci on. Pi t chf or d al s o r eques t ed, butw as deni ed, the f ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on: T he C our ti ns truct s the j ury t hatt he t es t i m ony of a n i nf or m antw ho pr ovi des evi dence agai ns ta def

endantf orpay ( orotherbe nef

i t ) , mustbe exa m i ned and w eigh ed b y the ju ry w ith g rea ter ca re tha n an o rdin ary w itn ess. Y o u the ju ry m us tdet erm i ne w het her the i nf or m ant ’ s t es t i m ony has been a f f ect ed by in ter e st o r p re

ju d ice a g a in st th e d e fe n d a n t. ¶89
. Pi t chf

or d ar gues the i nstruct i on given w as defi ci ent because i tl um ped accom pli ce and i nf or m antt es t i m ony t ogetherand “i gnor ed evi dence bef or e i tthatatl eas tone i nf or m anthad
r ece i ved a be nef

i t . ” I ndeed, thi s C our thas notvi ew ed i nf or m antt es t i m ony f

avor abl y. 48 H ow ever , thi s C our thas uphel d the deni al of a ca ut i onary i ns truct i on bas ed part l y on the f act that an info rm an t did n o t r ec eive an y p refere n ti al trea tm en t f o r his test im o n y . S ti ll , w h ere 49 the i nf or m antdi d r ece i ve a be nef i t , the j ury s houl d be i ns truct ed t o r egar d s uch t es t i m ony
w ith “ c a u tio n a n d s u s p ic io n .” 50Rubenstein v. State, 941 So. 2d 735, 787 (Miss. 2006) (ci ting Go od in v. St ate , 787 So. 2d 51 63 9, 65 7 (M iss . 2 00 1))
. Th or so n v . S tat e , 895 So. 2d 85 (Miss. 2004) ( citing Hei del v. St ate , 587 So. 2d 835, 842 52 (Mi ss. 19 91 )). Ru bens tei

n , 941 So. 2d at 767. 53 787 So. 2d at 1286-288. 54 

### 33 ¶90. T hi s C our t has s t at ed, “j ury i ns truct i on s are w i thi n the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al
court . ” A courtm ay ref use an i ns truct i on i f

i t“i s cover ed f

ai r l y el s ew her e i n t he 51 in s tru c tio n s .” 52 ¶9 1. W e f

i nd Moo re i nap pli cable t o th e fa cts o f t h is case an d , thu s, n o ca u ti o n ary i ns truct i on w as nece s s ary. M i t chel l a nd H athcock both t es t i f i ed thatthey w er e notpr om i s ed,
an d d id n o t r ec eive , an y fav o rab le trea tm en t i n ex ch an g e fo r th eir t esti m o n y . P it ch ford 53
ar gues thatH athcock di d r ece i ve a be nef i t , beca us e hi s char ges w er e dr opped ata l at erdat e, al though ther e w as no evi dence thatthi s w as beca us e of hi s t es t i m ony. ¶92. I n any ca s e, as r equi r ed by Moo re , the tr i al courtgr ant ed a caut i onary i ns truct i on 54 thatadvi s ed the j ury t o vi ew i nf or m antt es t i m ony w i th caut i on and s us pi ci on. T hus , w e f i nd
n o erro r. VI . FAI LURE TO G RAN T A M I S TRI AL AFTER W I TNES S TES TI FI ED TO I NADM I S S AB LE AND P RE J UDI CI AL M AT TE RS ¶93. Pi t chf

or d’ s nextassi gn m ent of err or i s thatthe tr i al courts houl d have de cl ar ed a
m i s tr i al af

t era St at e w i tnes s i m pr oper l y t es t i f i ed t o pr ej udi ci al and i m pr operm att er s dur i ng
cr os s - exami nat i on. A s Pi t chf or d’ s couns el w as cr os s - exami ni ng J ames H athcock, w ho had t es t i f i ed thatPi t chf

or d had conf

es s ed the cr i m e t o hi m i n j ai l , the f ol l ow i ng occurr ed: Q : A re you a nd P i t chford go od fr i end s? W ere y’ al l go od fr i end s?Pa rk s v. St ate , 9 30 So . 2 d 3 83 , 3 86 (Mi ss. 20 06 ). 55Id. 56 

### 34 A : W e l i ved cl os e t o eac h otherf ora l i t t l e w hi l e. Q : D i d y’ al l become r eal g oo d fr i ends w her e you w oul d t el l hi m your secr et s? A : N otr eal l y. Q : O kay. A nd yetyou w antus t o be l i eve thathe f el tcomfort abl e enough w i th you t o t el l you thathe ki l l ed s om ebody. A : W el l , he w as s el l i ng m e dope. ¶9 4
. A ft er this e x c h a n g e , the ju ry w as e x cu sed an d P it ch ford im m ed iat ely m o v ed for a
m i s tr i al , w hi ch the tr i al courtr ef us ed t o gr ant . T he St at e previ ou sl y had di s cl os ed t o t he d efe n se th e fa ct th at P it ch ford h ad so ld d rug s to H athc o ck
. T h e tri al j u d g e instructed the jury to totall y d isr eg ard the statem en t an d m ad e ea ch juro r affirm tha t he o r she w o u ld d isr eg ard it. ¶9 5. A t r i al cour t“ mus td e c l a r e a mi s tr i a l when the r e i s an err ori n t he pr ocee di ngs
res u lti n g in su b stan ti al an d irrep ara b le pre jud ice to the d efe n d an t’ s ca se.” T h is C o u rt 55
r evi ew s a tr i al court ’ s deci s i on on a mot i on f ora mi s tr i al underan abus e- of -di scr et i on
s ta n d a rd
. 56 ¶9 6. T he w i tne s s ’ s s t a t e mentwas c l ear l y i m pr oper . H ow ever , t he t r i al cour t t ook i m m edi at e and a ppr opr i at e s t eps t o c ur e any pr ej udi ci al e f f ect . Fur therm or e, “ i ti s pr es um ed thatj ur or s f

ol l ow the i ns truct i ons of the court . T o pr es um e otherw i s e w oul d be t o r endert heCh as e v. St ate , 64 5 So
. 2d

8 29 , 85 3 (Mi ss. 1 99 4) (quoting Johnso n v . S tat e , 475 So. 2d 57 11 36 , 1 14 2 (M iss . 1 98 5))
. Se e , e.g. , Yar

bo ro ug h v . S tat e , 9 11 So . 2 d 9 51 , 9 56 -58 (Mi ss. 20 05 ). 58 

### 35 j ury s ys t em i noper abl e. ” T hus , w e concl ude thatthe tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on 57 b y fa ili n g to g ra n t a m istria l. 58 VI I . F AI L UR E T O S UP P RE S S E VI DE NC E OB T AI NE D T HR OU GH A W ARR ANTLES S S EARCH OF DEFENDANT’ S AUTO M OBI LE ¶ 9 7
. P itch fo rd a rg u e s th e .3 8 c a lib e r re v o lv e r u se d in th e sh o o tin g a n d late r d isc o v e re d in hi s cars houl d have be en s uppr es s ed as the pr oductof an i l l egal s ear ch. A f

t err ece i vi ng i nfor m at i on thatPi t chf or d had bee n i nvol ved i n a pr evi ous att empt t o r ob the s t or e, In v e stig a to r C o n ley w e n t to P itch fo rd ’s h o m e , w h e re , in th e d riv e w a y , h e s p o tted a v e h icle
m a tc h in g th e d e s c ri p tio n o f a v e h ic le s e e n b y w itn e s s e s a t th e s to re p ri o r t o th e ro b b e ry . A t ag s ear ch r evea l ed thatthe ca rw as t i t l ed t o Pi t chf or d and hi s m other , Shi r l ey J acks on. ¶9 8. C onl ey a s ke d f

or pe r mi s s i on t o s e a r c h the ve hi c l e . Pi t c hf or d c on s e nt e d or a l l y, but
re fu se d to sig n a c o n se n t fo rm , w h ile J a c k so n sig n e d th e c o n s e n t f o rm . C o n ley (th e o n ly
w i tnes s t o t es t i f

y atthe suppr es s i on hear i ng) t es t i f i ed that , af

t erJ acks on had s i gned the
c o n s e n t f o rm , P itc h fo rd s ta te d “ m o m m a , it’s so m e th in g in th e c a r. I t’ s s o m e th in g in th e c a r.” In v e stig a to r C o n ley tes tified th a t P itch fo rd n e v e r w ith d re w h is o ra l co n se n t. ¶99
. Invest i gatorC on l ey sear ched the veh i cl e and dis cov ered the re v o lver. P it ch ford
m oved the tr i al courtt o s uppr es s the evi dence , cl ai m i ng he di d notcons ent , and t hatt he
s ear ch w as i l l egal
. T he tr i al courtdeni ed Pi t chf or d’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , f i ndi ng thatC onl ey h a d c o n se n t to se a rc h th e v e h icle a n d , alte rn a tiv e ly , tha t In v e stig a to r C o n ley p ro p e rly c o u ld hav e exec uted a w arr antl ess s earch becau se of exi gen tci rcum st ances.U.S. Const. am end IV; Miss. Const . art. 3, § 23. 59Mo ore v. St

ate , 9 33 So . 2 d 9 10 (Mis s. 20 06 ) (c iting Morris v. St ate , 777 So. 2d 16, 26 60 (Mi ss. 20 00 )). 54 7 U .S . 1 03 , 1 26 S. Ct . 1 51 5, 16 4 L. Ed . 2 d 2 08 (20 06 ). 61 

### 36 ¶1 00
. Pi t chf

or d a dmi t s tha th e i ni t i a l l y c on s e nt e d t o the s e a r c h. H oweve r , he cl ai m s he
w i thdr ew hi s cons ent . A s evidence of the w i thdr aw al , he poi nt s t o the f ol l ow i ng t r i al t es t i m on y fr om Inve s t i gat orC onl ey: “Pi t chf or d w as – w hen I w entt o s ear ch the ca rhe
s ta rt e d g e ttin g k in d o f a n g ry , s o I h a d h im d e ta in e d a n d m o v e d to th e s id e o f t h e h o u s e .” T hi s t es t i m ony came dur i ng t he tr i al , butw as notpr ovi ded dur i ng the s uppr es s i on hear i ng. A l s o, Pi t chf

or d di d notof

f erany pr oof

conce rni ng hi s demeanordur i ng the s ear ch, as des cr i bed by I nves t i gat orConl ey, nordi d he i nf or m the tr i al j udge thatI nves t i gat orC onl ey h a d h im d e tain e d a n d m o v e d to th e sid e o f th e h o u se . W e w ill n o t h o ld th e tria l j u d g e in
err orf orf ai l ur e t o suppre s s evi dence bas ed on t es t i m ony and evi dence notgi ven atthe
s uppr es s i on hear i ng. ¶ 1 0 1
. B o th th e U n ited S tate s a n d M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n s g u a ra n tee c iti z e n s th e ri g h t to be secu re i n thei r per sons, ho uses, and po sses sions ag ai nstun reas on able and w arr antl ess
s ear ches and s ei zur es . “W hi l e t he w arr antcl aus es of thes e pr ovi s i ons expr es s the gene r al 59
rul e thatl aw enf

or cementm us tproc ur e a w arr antbas ed on pr obabl e ca us e bef or e enga gi ng i n a s e a r c h, the rul e h a s s e ve r a l e xc e pt i on s . . . . Vol un t a ry c on s e nte l i mi na t e s t he w ar r ant
re q u ir e m e n t.” 60 ¶1 02
. Pi t chf

or d ar gu e s tha t , b e c a us e the s e a r c h w a s c on du c t ed overhi s obj ect i on, t he evidence sho uld be sup press ed. H e ci t es R a n do lph v. G eo rg ia , i n w hi ch i n the U ni t ed 61Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). 62 

### 37 S t at es Su prem e C ou rtheld that a w arr antl ess s earch of a shar ed dw el l i ng , ov er the ex press
re fu sa l o f c o n se n t b y a p h y sic a lly p re se n t re sid e n t, ca n n o t b e ju stifie d a s re a so n a b le a s to hi m , base d on cons entgi ven t o pol i ce by a notherr es i dent
. H ow ever , beca us e w e f i nd Pi t chf or d cons ent ed t o the s ear ch and ne verw i thdr ew hi s cons ent , w e nee d notexpl or e the i s s ue addr es s ed i n R andol ph
. ¶ 1 0 3
. W e fin d th is iss u e h a s n o m e rit. V I I I . F AI LURE TO SUPP RES S S TATEM ENTS GI VEN TO LAW ENFORCE M EN T A FT ER D EF EN D A N T’ S A R R EST ¶104. I n hi s ei ghth assi gn m ent of err or , Pi t chf

or d as s ert s thatthe tr i al courts houl d have
su p p re ss e d fiv e sta tem e n ts h e m a d e to p o lice o ffic e rs a fte r h is a rre st b e c a u se th e sta tem e n ts
w ere t aken i n v i olat i on of hi s Fif th, S i xth, and F ou rt eenth A m end m ent r i gh t s. ¶105. Fol l ow i ng a pr etr i al hear i ng, the tr i al court deni ed Pi t chf or d’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he
s t at ement s , s t at i ng: “The C our tf i nds notonl y bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbutbeyond any d o u b t w h atso ev er tha t th ese stat em en ts w ere freely a n d v o lu n taril y g iven
. ” P it ch ford
ren ew ed h is objec tio n to th e introd u cti o n o f his stat em en ts du ri n g tr ial , an d the tri al co u rt agai n overrul ed the obj ect i on. ¶106. A cr i m i nal “def

endantm ay w ai ve eff

ect uat i on of [ the r i ghtt o re m ai n si l entand t he
r i ghtt o the pr es ence of

an att orney] , pr ovi ded the w ai veri s m ade vol unt ar i l y, know i ngl y and i ntel l i gen t l y. ” A cri m i nal defendan tw ho ch al l eng es t he vo l un t ari ness of the w ai ver ha s a 62Po well v . S tat e , 540 So. 2d 13 (Miss. 1989) (cit ing Jackson v. Denno , 378 U.S. 368, 377, 63 84 S. Ct . 1 77 4, 17 81 , 1 2 L . E d. 2d 90 8, 91 5 (1 96 4))
. McG owan v. St

ate , 706 So. 2d 231, 235 (Miss. 1997) ( quoting Neal v . S tat e, 451 So. 2d 64 74 3, 75 6 (M iss . 1 98 4))
. L a yn ev . S ta te , 542 So. 2d 237, 239 (Miss. 1989) ( citing Jo ne s v. St ate , 461 So. 2d 686, 65 696-97 (Miss. 1984) and Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477, 486, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378, 387 (1981)). Lee v. St ate , 2 36 Mis s. 71 6, 11 2 S o. 2d 25 4, 25 6 (1 95 9). 66 Id. at 255-256. 67Id. at 256. 68 

### 38 d u e p ro c e s s r ig h t to a re liab le ju d icia l re v iew o f w h e th e r th e c o n fe ss io n w a s, in fa c t, vol unt ar i l y gi ven. 63 ¶ 1 0 7
. T h e trial c o u rt’s d u ty is q u ite c lea r o n th is is su e . A tria l ju d g e m u st re v iew th e to tality of the ci rcum s t ance s , and make a f actual det erm i nat i on of w hetherthe def

endant intell igen tl y , k n o w ing ly, and v o lun tary w aive d h is or h er righ ts. F u rth erm o re , the c o u rt 64
m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r, u n d e r th e to tality o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, th e a c c u se d w a s a d e q u a tely
w arned. T he long-st and i ng rul e i n thi s st at e i s that the b urden o f pr ov i ng the v olunt ari ness

65 of the conf es s i on i s on t he St at e. 66 ¶108. T he of

f i c e r s w ho i nt e rr ogat ed Pi t chf or d t es t i f i ed he w as of

f er ed no r ew ar d, and he w as notthreat ened orcoer ced, and thathi s s t at ementw as vol unt ar i l y gi ven. Such t es t i m ony
cr eat es a pr i m a f

aci e ca s e of

vol unt ar i nes s . H ow ever , w hen the def endant pr oduces 67 evi dence thathi s w ai vera nd c onf es s i on w er e notvol unt ary, the St at e mustpr oduce e vi dence t o d i rect l y rebut the d efendan t ’s cl ai m s. 68 ¶ 1 0 9
. T h e sta n d a rd o f re v iew fo r su c h a d e ter m in a tio n h a s b e e n sta ted b y th is C o u rt:Da visv. St ate , 551 So. 2d 165, 169 (Miss. 1989) ( citing Fros t v. St ate , 483 So. 2d 1345, 69 13 50 (Mi ss. 19 86 )). Ch amb erl

in v. St ate , 989 So. 2d 320, 334 (Miss. 2008) ( citing Edwards v. Arizona , 451 70 U.S. 477, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1981), and Neal v . S tat e , 45 1 S o. 2d

74 3, 75 5 (M iss
. 19 84 )). 

### 39 Fi ndi ngs by a t r i al j udge t hata def endantconf

es s ed vol unt ar i l y, and thats uch conf essi on i s admi s s i bl e ar e f i ndi ngs of

f act . Such f

i ndi ngs ar e tr eat ed as f i ndi ngs of f

act m ade by a tr i al j udge s i t t i ng w i thouta j ury as i n any other cont ext . A s l ong as the tr i al j udge appl i es t he corr ectl egal s t andar ds , hi s [ or her ] deci s i on w i l l notbe r ever s ed on appe al unl es s i ti s m ani f es t l y i n err or , or i s contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. 69 ¶110. Pi t chford adm i t s thatthe St at e obt ai ned a w r i t t en Mir anda w ai ver pri or t o his fi rs t sta tem e n t. H o w e v e r, h e in sis ts h e g a v e n o w a iv e r p rio r to h is n e x t th re e sta tem e n ts. T h is C our thas s ai d: In v o c a tio n o f th e rig h t to c o u n se l is a rig id , p ro p h y lac tic ru le w h ich p ro h ib its f ur therques t i oni ng unt i l an att orney i s m ade a vai l abl e orthe def endant know i ngl y and vol unt ar i l y w ai ves hi s [ orher ] r i ght
. O n the otherhand, in v o c a tio n o f th e rig h t to sile n c e c o n c e rn s w h e th e r a n o ffic e r sc ru p u lo u sly honor s a def

endant ' s r i ghtto ceas e ques t i oni ng f ora r eas onabl e t i m e, af t er w h ich q u e stio n in g m a y re su m e if th e d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n tar ily w a iv e s th is rig h t. 70 ¶111. A tthe hea r i ng on the m ot i on t o s uppr es s , I nves t i gat orC onl ey pr ovi ded the f ol l ow i ng t es t i m ony conce r ni ng the thr ee s t at ement s he t ook f r om Pi t chf

or d on N ovember7, 2004: Q : I w antt o hand you bac k E xhi bi t5 f ori dent i f i cat i on and as k i f

you can t el l the C ou rtw hat this i s. A : T hi s i s a Mir anda Ri g h t s f o r m. Q : Is th a t t h e sa m e rig h ts fo rm th a t y o u u se d to a d v ise th is d e fe n d a n t, T erry P i t chford, of hi s r i gh t s? A
. Y es, sir
.

. . .

### 40

Q: Di d y o u a d v i s e h i m o f a l l th e r i g h t s o n th a tf

o r m? A : Y es, si r. Q : D i d itapp ear t o y ou that he un derst oo d those r i gh t s? A : Y es, si r. Q : W hy did i tapp ear t o y ou that he un derst oo d those r i gh t s? A : B eca us e he t ol d m e he di d. Q : A n d o n ce y o u a d v ised h im o f tho se ri g h ts, d id h e, i n fac t, sign that form and the w ai vers t at i ng thathe di d notw i s h t o have a n att orney and he w ant ed t o di s cus s the ca s e w i th you? A : Y es, si r.

. . . Q : I b e liev e h e m a d e th re e sta tem e n ts to y o u th a t d a y ; is th a t co rre c t? A : Y es, si r. Q : A nd on eac h of

thos e t aped s t at ement s bef or e you s t art ed i nt ervi ew i ng hi m di d you go ba ck i nt o the f actof a s ki ng hi m i f

he un derst oo d t he r i g h t s th a ty o u h a d p r e v i o u s l y a d v i s e d h i m? A : Y es, sir
. Q : A nd on eac h occa s i on di d he t el l you thathe di d? A : Y es, si r. Q : D i d i tappea rt o you thathe di d? A : Y es, si r. Q : O n any of

t hos e st at ement s di d you us e any pr es s ur e orcoer ci on t o get hi m t o t al k t o you? A : N o , sir
.551 So. 2d at 169. 71 542 So. 2d at 239. 72 

### 41 Q : D i d y ou ho l d o ut any ho pe o f r ew ard or m ake h i m any prom i ses? A : N o , sir
. ¶ 1 1 2
. In lig h t o f O ffic e r C o n ley ’s te stim o n y , w e c a n n o t sa y th e trial c o u rt’s f in d in g s a s to thes e s t at ement s w er e i n err ororcontr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence , as
r equi r ed by D a v is
. Pi t chf or d ar gues that , becaus e the of f i cer s di d notobt ai n a w r i t t en 71
w ai verbef

or e St at ement s 2 and 3, ther e w as no v olunt ary w ai ver . H ow ever , he ci t es no
a u th o rity su p p o rtin g th is p ro p o sitio n . T h e re c o rd su p p o rts th e trial c o u rt’s f in d in g s th a t,
u n d e r th e to tality o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, P itch fo rd v o lu n tar ily a n d in tellig e n tly w a iv e d h is p ri v il eg e a g ains t sel f-i n crim ination u n d er Lay ne . 72 ¶1 13
. Pi t chf

or d ar gues t hat , w hen he gave the f i r s tthr e e s t a t e ment s on N ovember 7, I n v e s t i g a t o rCo n l e y ma d e s e v e r a l f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g th e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s th i m. H e a d m its th a t m isre p re se n tatio n s, in a n d o f th e m se lv e s, d o n o t r e n d e r h is s tate m e n ts i nvol unt ary. H ow ever , he cont ends thats uch mi s r epr es ent at i ons w er e component s of i m pr operps ychol ogi cal coer ci on l eadi ng up t o the tw o s t at ement s he gave on N ovember8, 2004. ¶ 1 1 4
. On No v e mb e r8 , Ro b e r tJ e n n i n g s wa s s c h e d u l e d t o g i v e P i t c h f o r d a p o l y g r a p h e x a m. J enni ngs t es t i f

i ed that , “ af

t era s hor tpe r i od of

t i m e, [ Pi t chf

or d] a gr eed t o t ake a pol ygr aph t e s t . So a f

t e rI n v e s t i g a t o rCo n l e y l e f to u to f t h e r o o m, I , a g a i n , we n tb a c k t h r o u g h th e s a me ri g h ts. I pu t a ch ec k m ark b y ea ch o n e m ark ing [si c] sure th at he u n d erstoo d it
. ” P it ch ford

### 42

ar gues t hat , beca us e he di d nots i gn the w ai verpor t i on of the Mir anda f

or m , the w ai verof h is r igh ts w as n o t vo lun tary a n d intell igen t. Jen n ing s testi fi ed that, after ad v isi n g P it ch ford of hi s Mir anda r i gh t s and r eadi ng the w ai verand cons entf or m t o hi m , Pi t chf

or d “s t ar t ed
cryi ng and he st at ed t hathe had been up al l ni ghtpra yi ng. ” Je nni ngs r emi nded hi m thathe
w as ther e t o t ake a pol ygr aph t es t , and s ai d “i f you l i e t o us , w e ar e goi ng t o know w hether
ornotyou ar e l yi ng about any o f t hi s . ” A tthatpoi nt , Pi t chf or d began t o t el l J enni ngs t he chai n of event s thatoccurr ed the morni ng B r i t tw as m ur der ed. ¶115. O f

f i cerC onl ey st epped i nt o t he r oom , atw hi ch poi ntPi t chf or d “qui tt al ki ng. ” C onl ey
as ked Pi t chf

or d, “do you under s t and w hatyourr i ght s ar e, ” and Pi t chf or d sai d “yes
. ” C onl ey th e n a s k e d , “ is it y o u r o w n fr e e w ill to m a k e a s ta te m e n t? ” P itc h fo rd a g a in re s p o n d e d “ y e s .” ¶ 1 1 6
. Je n n in g s tes tified th a t, w h e n C o n ley w a lk e d into the ro o m , P itch fo rd re v e rte d to h is p re v io u s s to ry . H e sa id , “It w a s k in d o f o b v io u s th a t m a y b e h e w a s n o t g o in g to talk fre e ly in fro n t o f C o n ley.” A ft er C o n ley s tepp ed b ac k o u t of th e ro o m , P it ch ford “told the e n ti re chai n of event s , w hi ch w e s t art ed f r om a w eek a nd a hal f pri or t o ri ghton up t o the ac tual
m o rn in g o f t h e a c tu a l m u rd e r a n d ro b b e ry .” ¶117. J enni ngs t es t i f

i ed thatne i therhe norC onl ey made thr eat s t o Pi t chf or d orhel d out any h o p e o f rew ard in o rde r t o en ti ce h im to g ive the s tat em en ts. H e a lso testi fi ed that P it ch ford cl earl y un derst oo d h i s Mir anda r i ght s , a nd ther e w as no i ndi cat i on thathe di d notf r eel y and
vo l un t ari l y w ai ve those ri gh t s. ¶1 18
. Pi t chf

or d as s er t s t hat Jennings an d C onl ey cr eat ed t he “‘ per f ects t or m ’ of
u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o e r c i o n ” b y th r e a t e n i n g t o g i v e Pi t c h f o r d a p o l y g r a p h e x a m,
m isre p re se n tin g th e relia b ili ty o f th e p o ly g ra p h tes t, an d tellin g P itch fo rd th a t an y th in g sa id

### 43

w a s ju st b e tw e e n th e tw o o f th e m (i.e ., P itch fo rd a n d Je n n in g s). H o w e v e r, th e re c o rd re v e a ls thatPi t chf

or d vol unt eer ed t o t ake the pol ygr aph exa m , and J enni ngs t es t i f i ed thathe di d not th re a ten P itch fo rd th ro u g h m isre p re se n tatio n s o f th e p o ly g ra p h ’s a c c u ra c y , b u t sim p ly in d ica ted to h im th a t th e p u rp o se o f a p o ly g ra p h e x a m -- w h ich h e a g re e d to ta k e -- w a s to det erm i ne truthf

ul nes s . F i nal l y, J enni ngs admi t t ed t el l i ng Pi t chf or d thathi s conf

es s i on w as

“ b e tw e e n y o u a n d I,” b u t o n ly “ a ft e r h e h a d g iv e n th e e n tir e s ta te m e n t.” ¶ 1 1 9
. Ba s e d o n t h i s r e c o r d , we c a n n o ts a y t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s ru l i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e s e t wo N o v em b er 8 stat em en ts w as a g ains t th e o v erw h elm ing w eigh t of th e e v iden ce . T h e c o u rt
s ai d: [ I ] t ’ s the under s t andi ng of the C our tthatthe f

i f th s t at ementw as a cont i nuat i on of the f our th s t at ement . I tw as j us ta s i tuat i on w her e O f f i cerC onl ey w as no l ongeri n t he r oo m . I thi nk i tcoul d have ve ry eas i l y been c al l ed s t at ement f our . Forw hat everr eas on they w er e tr ans cr i bed atdi f f er entt i m es and c o n sid e re d f

iv e d iffe re n t sta tem e n ts. B u t n e v e rth e les s, h e w a s p ro p e rly M i r andi s ed, M i r andi s ed [ s i c] bef or e the s t at ementw as gi ven. ¶ 1 2 0
. T h e trial ju d g e a p p lied th e c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd s, h is d e c isio n w a s n o t m a n ife stly in
e rro r, an d th is iss u e h a s n o m e rit. I X. ADM I S S I ON OF EVI DENCE CO NCERN I NG PRI OR BAD AC TS ¶1 21
. Pi t chf

or d nextar gues t he St a t e i mpr op e r l y i ntr od uc e d e vi de nc e of a pr i or cr i m e. Pi t chf or d w as i ndi ct ed f

ortw o cr i m es : ( 1) capi t al m ur derof R ubi n B r i t ti n the cour s e of
arm ed r obbery, and ( 2) cons pi r acy t o com m i ta cr i m e ar i s i ng outof hi s pr evi ous l y thw ar t ed att empt t o r ob B r i t t ’ s s t or e. T h e c h a rg e s w e re n o t co n so lid a ted in to a m u lti c o u n t in d ictm e n t,
n o r w e re th e y c o n so lid a ted in to a sin g le tria l.Mis s. R. Evid 4 04 (b) (em ph asi s adde d). 73 M i s s . R
. E vi d. 403. 74 

### 44 ¶ 1 2 2
. C iti n g M iss iss ip p i R u les o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ) a n d 4 0 3 , P itch fo rd m o v e d to e x c lu d e th is evi dence
. T he C our tal l ow ed Pi t chf or d’ s c ouns el t o r es erve hi s obj ect i on. D ur i ng a bench conf er ence att r i al , t he pr os ecut orre ques t ed a R ul e 403 bal anci ng t es t . T he tr i al courtrul ed as f oll ow s: A s I u n d e rsta n d fro m th e m o tio n s la st w e e k , ap p ro x im a tely a w e e k b e fo re th is all eg ed crim e o cc u rred the re w as a p lan w h ere M r. P it ch ford a n d o thers w ere pr es enti nt endi ng t o go i n and r ob the .
. . C r os s r oads G r ocery. A nd s om ehow th a t p lan w a s th w a rte d . A n d a w e e k late r th e ex a c t sa m e c rim e w a s a lleg e d ly comm i t t ed. T hats eems t o m e t o be underthe hea di ng of pl ans , prepar at i on, m o tiv e a n d th e – a n d a d m iss ib le a s e v id e n c e . A n d so th e C o u rt fin d s th a t to be hi ghl y pr obat i ve. A nd the pr obat i ve val ue w oul d s ubst anti al l y outw ei gh a n y p r e j u d i c e . S o th a ti s t e s t i mo n y th e Co u r twi l l a l l o w. ¶ 1 2 3
. P itch fo rd c o n c e d e s th a t e v id e n c e o f o th e r c ri m e s m a y b e a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ) in o rd e r to s h o w in ten t, pr e p a ra tio n , p lan , o r k n o w led g e , o r w h e re n e c e ss a ry to tell the c o m p let e sto ry so as n o t t o co n fuse th e jury
. H o w ev er, Pit ch ford d ispu tes th e tri al co u rt ’s
ru lin g th a t th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e e v id e n c e o u tw e ig h e d its p re ju d icia l ef

fe c t. ¶12 4. T he tw o ev i den t i ary rules ati ssue ar e as f oll ow s: O th er C rim es, W ro n g s, o r A cts . E v id e n c e o f o th e r c rim e s, w ro n g s, o r a c ts i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ov e the c ha r a c t e ro f a p e r s on i n or de rt o s ho w tha the a c te d in c o n fo rm ity th e re w ith
. I tm ay, how eve r, be adm is s i bl e f orother pur po ses s uch as pr oof

of m ot i ve, oppor t uni t

y, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, plan, know l edge, i dent i t

y, orabs ence of

m is take oracci dent
. 73 and A lth o u g h relev an t, ev iden ce m ay b e e x clud ed if it s p rob ati v e v alue is s ubs t ant i al l y outw ei ghed by the dange rof unf ai rpr ej udi ce, conf

us i on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng the j ury, orby cons i der at i ons of undue del ay, w as t e of t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence
. 74See J e n k in s v . S ta te , 5 0 7 S o . 2 d 8 9 , 9 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ), a n d its p ro g e n y , B u rns v. 75 S ta te , 729 So. 2d. 203, 222 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng P a rk e r v . S ta te , 606 So. 2d 1132, 1136- 37 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by G o ff v . S ta te , 1 4 S o . 3 d 6 2 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 )). E ckm an v. Moo re , 8 7 6 S o . 2 d 9 7 5 , 9 8 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). 76 Id. at 98 4 (c itatio ns omitt ed). 77 Miss. R. Evid. 403. 78 

### 45 ¶1 2 5
. A s a n in iti a l m a tt er, w e n o te th at th is C o u rtha s, i n prev iou s cas es , e rro n e o u sly im p li ed that R u le 40 4 (b) e x ce p ti o n s are n o t subject t o R u le 40 3 an alys is. T o d ay , w e c lari fy 75 thos e ca s es and hol d thatR ul e 404( b) e xcept i ons a r e, i ndeed, s ubj ectt o a R ul e 403 bal anci ng tes t. ¶126. T he tr i al court f

ound the evidence admi s s i bl e under R ul e 404( b)
. Fur therm or e, t he trial c o u rt c o n d u c ted a R u le 4 0 3 b a lan c in g tes t, an d fo u n d “ th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e w o u ld
s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h a n y p re ju d ic e .” ¶127. A tr i al court “must exer ci s e s ound di s cr et i on i n det erm i ning w hether the pr of f er ed evi dence i s r el evantunderM i s s . R
. E vi d. 401 and ev en i f r el evant , w hethers uch r el evant
ev iden ce is ad m issi b le a p p lying the M iss. R
. E v id. 40 3 c ri teri a.” F u rth erm o re, th is C o u rt 76 h a s h e ld “ th a t th e a d m iss io n o f e v id e n c e is w e ll w ith in th e s o u n d d isc re tio n o f th e trial c o u rt,
s u b je c t to re v e rs a l o n a p p e a l o n ly if th e re b e a n a b u s e o f t h a t d is c re tio n .” 77 ¶128. W e cann ot s ay the tr i al court abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng the evi dence under R ul es 404( b) and 403 . T he tr i al j udge s houl d have s t at ed thathe found the evi dence w as admi s s i bl e bec aus e “the pr obat i ve val ue [ w as ] nots ub s t ant i al l y outw ei ghed by the dange r of unf ai rpr ej udi ce, ” r athert han “the pr obat i ve val ue w oul d s ubst anti al l y outw ei gh any 78 pr ej udi ce. ” B uteven though the tr i al j udge di d notut t ert he “m agi c w or ds ” of R ul e 403, heSee, e.g., Ta te v . S tat e , 2 0 S o. 3d

62 3, 63 9 (M iss . 2 00 9). 79 95 5 S o. 2d

78 7 (M iss . 2 00 7). 80 Id. at 792. 81 

### 46 cl ear l y per f

or m ed a Rul e 403 ana l ys i s and t hus di d notabuse hi s di s cr et i on i n adm i t t i ng t he
e v id e n c e , a n d th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r h a s n o m e rit.

79 X. EX P ER T T ES TI M ONY ¶1 2 9
. P it ch ford ’s ne x t assign m en t of erro r is that the tr ial co u rterro n eo u sly a ll o w ed the jury t o hearopi ni ons f

r om D r . St even H ayne, w ho w as t ender ed by the St at e – w i thoutobj ect i on
– as an expe r ti n the f i el d of f or ens i c pathol ogy. D r. H ayne pe r f or m ed the aut ops y on R euben Bri t ta nd t es t i f

i ed he had been s hotup t o thr ee t i m es w i th a hand gun c ont ai ni ng r at sh o t, an d fi v e ti m es w ith sm all -ca li b er ro u n d s, co n sist en t w ith a .22 ca li b er w ea p o n . D r. H a y n e a lso tes tified th a t itw o u ld n o t b e inc o n sis ten t w ith the d e c e d e n t’s w o u n d s fo r h im to have be en s hotone t o f ourt i m es w i th the . 38 cal i berw eapon r ecove r ed f r om Pi t chf

or d. ¶130. R el yi ng on E dm o n d s v. S ta te , Pi t chf

or d ar gues D r . H ayne’ s t es t i m ony conce r ni ng 80 t he gu ns hotw ound w as out s i de hi s ar ea of expert i s e. I n E dm onds , D r . H a yn e pr ovi ded opi ni ons out s i de hi s ar ea of expert i s e w hen he t es t i f i ed t hatt he t r i ggerof the murde rw eapon
w as l i kel y pul l ed by tw o per s ons , r atherthan one. 81 ¶ 1 3 1
. Th e i s s u e b e f

o r e u s t o d a y i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m E dm onds
. D r. H a y n e is c lea rly qu al i fi ed to p rovi de o pini on s as t o the nature and nu m ber of w ou nd s, and w hethert ho se
w ounds a r e cons i s t entw i th a
. 22 c al i berc artr i dge ora . 38 c al i berr at s hotc artr i dge. Su chSee, e.g. Hol lan d v . S tat e , 705 So. 2d 307, 341 (Mi ss . 19 97) ( “Thus, in Missi ssippi, a 82 fo ren sicpatho log ist

m aytes tif

y a s to wh at p rod

uc ed theinj uri es in this c ase . . . . ”). 21 So . 3 d 5 72 , 5 88 -89 (Mi ss. 20 09 ). 83 

### 47 t es t i m ony f

al l s s quar el y w i thi n the expe r t i s e of a f or ens i c pathol ogi s t . W e f i nd thi s i s s ue 82 h a s n o m e rit. ¶132. T he s econd ar gum ent Pi t chf or d advanc es conce rni ng D r . H ayne i s that he s houl d not have be en al l ow ed t o t es t i f y atal l beca us e the St at e f ai l ed t o s how he w as “qual i f i ed as an
ex p ert by k n o w ledg e, skil l, ex p erien ce , tr ainin g , o r ed u ca ti o n . ” P it ch ford arg u es th at D r. H ayne’ s t es t i m ony s hould ha ve bee n excl uded bec aus e he i ncorr ect l y t es t i f i ed thathe w as

“ th e s ta te p a th o lo g is t f o r t h e D e p a r tm e n t o f P u b lic S a fe ty M e d ic a l E x a m in e r’ s O ff ic e .” Pi t chf or d al s o ar gues , base d on a new s paperar t i cl e, t hatt he numberof aut ops i es per f

or m ed
e a c h y e a r b y D r. H a y n e “ e sta b lish e d tha t th e m e th o d s h e em p lo y e d w e re n o t i n c o n fo rm ity
w ith th e a c c e p te d m e th o d s o f t h e p ro fe s s io n .” ¶ 1 3 3
. P itch fo rd m a d e n o o b jec tio n to th e se co n c e rn s a t tria l, a n d so th e y are p ro c e d u ra lly barr ed. A nd even i f

t hey w er en’ t , t hi s C our tre cent l y addr es s ed a ne ar l y i dent i cal ar gum ent i n W ilso n v. S ta te and s t at ed:

83 W i l s on ar gues thatthe r ecor d re veal s D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed t hathi s pos i t i on w as thatof “C hi ef St at e Pathol ogi s tf

orthe D epart m entof Publ i c Saf ety” f orthe St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi
. W i l s on corr ect l y poi nt s t o t he fac tthatther e i s no s uch pos i t i on i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. A ccor di ng t o W i l s on , thi s f actcoupl ed w i th the cr i t i ci sm D r. H ayne ha s r ece i ved f r om thi s C our t , s houl d l end i t s el f under height ened -s crut i ny r eview t o a f i nd i ng by this C ou rtthat W i l son' s due p rocess r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed by D r . H ayne' s t es t i m ony.

. . . W e agr ee w i th the St at e thatW i l s on ci t es no author i ty, otherthan new s paper a rticle s , to s u p p o rt h is p ro p o sitio n th a t w e sh o u ld se t as id e W ilso n ' s d e a th se n ten c e m e re ly b e c a u s e D r. H a y n e tes tified in th is c a se . T h u s, th is C o u rt isRubenstein v. State, 941 So. 2d 735, 787 (Miss. 2006) (ci ting Go od in v. St ate , 787 So. 2d 84 639, 657 (Miss. 2001) ). 

### 48 n o t du ty-b o u n d to d iscu ss this issu e b a sed o n a p roc ed u ral ba r. H o w ev er, pr ocedur al barnotw i ths t andi ng, w e l ook br i ef l y t o thi s i s s ue.

. . .

. . . T ak en to it s log ical en d , W ilso n ' s arg u m en t w o u ld m ea n that this C o u rt s houl d adopta pers e rul e t hatt es t i m ony by D r . H ayne i n any cas e r ender s the ver di cti n thatcas e i nval i d. T hi s ar gum enti s s i m pl y unt enabl e. A ny new e v i d e n c e th a tc o u l d b e d e v e l o p e d f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

i m p e a c h i n g D r . H a y n e 's fi nd i ng s should be p res ented i n lat er post -convict i on -r el i ef pr oceed i ng s. ¶1 3 4
. W e fin d n o m e rit in P itch fo rd ’s c h all en g e to D r. H ay n e’s q u ali fic a tio n s o r h is t es t i m ony i n t hi s cas e. XI . J URY I NS TR UCT I ONS ¶1 35
. Pi t chf

or d’ s el e ve nth a s s i gn mentof err ori s t ha tt he t r i a l co urterr on e ou s l y e xc l ud ed
se v e ra l o f h is ju ry in stru c tio n s a n d in c lu d e d s e v e ra l o f th e S tate ’s ju ry in stru c tio n s. T h is C o u rt h a s s ta te d , “

ju ry in s tru c tio n s a re w ith in th e s o u n d d is c re tio n o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt .” 84 ¶13 6. P i t chford cl ai m s i n stru cti o n s D -9 a n d D -10 – b o th o f w h ich w ere ca u ti o n ary i ns truct i ons conce r ni ng i nf or m antt es t i m ony – w er e err oneousl y excl uded. W e have d i s c u s s e d th e s e i n s tru c t i o n s i n I s s u e V supra . ¶137. Pi t chf

or d al s o compl ai ns that the t ri al cou rt re f us ed hi s pr opos ed i ns truct i on, D
- 30. H ow ever , the r ecor d re veal s thatPi t chf or d’ s couns el w i thdr ew the i ns truct i on. W e w i l l not hol d the tr i al courti n err orf orf ai l i ng t o gi ve a w i thdr aw n i ns truct i on. ¶138. Pi t chf

or d c om pl ai ns thatthe St at e’ s pr opos ed i ns truct i ons S- 1, S- 2A , a nd S- 3 – w hi ch
w er e gi ven t o the j ury as I ns truct i ons 2, 3, and 4 – f ai l ed t o gi ve any gui dance t o t he j ur y as t o w hati ts houl d do i f

i tf ai l ed t o f i nd any o f the r equi s i t e el ement s of capi t al m ur derandTh or so n v . S tat e , 895 So. 2d 85, 107 (Miss. 2004) (citi ng Hei del v. St ate , 587 So. 2d 835, 85 84 2 (M iss . 1 99 1))
. Id. 86 

### 49 arm ed r obbery beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. I ns truct i ons 2 and 4 both cl ear l y s t at ed thatthe j ury coul d notf

i nd Pi t chf

or d gui l ty i f

i tdi d notf

i nd thathe ha d c om m i t t ed every e l ementof the c ri m es b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t. Instruc ti o n 3 also p rov ided that, i n ord er fo r th e jury t o f i nd Pi t chf

or d gui l ty, i thad t o cons i derthe evi dence and f i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubt th a t h e h a d c o m m itt e d th e e lem e n ts o f th e crim e o f ro b b e ry . T h e ins tru c tio n s a t issu e c lea rly
re q u ire d th e ju ry to fin d P itch fo rd g u ilty o f e a c h e lem e n t o f th e c rim e , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, so th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r h a s n o m e rit. ¶1 39
. Pi t chf

or d nextc ompl a i ns tha tthe tr i al cour ti m pr oper l y r ej ect ed hi s pr opos ed in stru c tio n D -1 8 , w h ich is a s fo llo w s: I i ns tructyou thatthe l aw l ooks w i th s us pi ci on a nd di s trus ton the t es t i m ony of a n a l l eged acc om pl i ce. T he l aw r equi r es the j ury t o w ei gh the t es t i m ony of an al l eged a ccompl i ce w i th gr eatcar e and w i th caut i on and s us pi ci on. ¶14 0. Jury I nst ruct i on 6, w hich w as pres ented t o the j ury, i s as f oll ow s: T he C our ti ns truct s the j ury t hatt he l aw l ooks w i th sus pi ci on and di s trus ton the testi m o n y o f an all eg ed ac co m p li ce o r i n form an t. T h e law req u ir es th e jury t o w ei ghtthe t es t i m ony of an al l eged a ccompl i ce ori nf or m antw i th gr eatcar e, caut i on and s us pi ci on. P i t c h f o r d c o mp l a i n s th a tI n s tru c t i o n 6 i n c l u d e d b o th a c c o mp l i c e s a n d i n f o r ma n t s i n th e s a me i nst ruct i on . W hil e i ti s true that “[ a] defend ant i s ent i t l ed to hav e his theo ry o f t he case pr es ent ed i n the j ury i ns truct i ons , ” the ent i t l ementi s l i m i t ed. T he courtm ay r ef us e an 85 in stru c tio n if it “is c o v e re d fa irly e lse w h e re in th e in stru c tio n s.” T h e trial c o u rt w a s w ith in 8644 2 U .S . 5 10 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 45 0, 61 L. Ed . 2 d 3 9 (1 97 9). 87 

### 50 i t s di s cret i on i n denyi ng D
- 18 as bei ng “f ai r l y i ncl uded el s ew her e, ” s o thi s as s i gnm entof
e rro r h a s n o m e rit. ¶141. Pi t chf

or d al s o compl ai ns that hi s i ns truct i on D
- 34 w as i m pr oper l y deni ed by the tr i al
cou rt . D -34, as propo sed, i s as f oll ow s: E a c h fa c t w h ich is e ss e n tial to c o m p lete a se t o f c ir c u m sta n c e s n e c e ss a ry to estab li sh the d efe n d an t’ s g u il t m u st be p rov ed b ey o n d a rea so n ab le d o u b t. In o th e r w o rd s, b e fo re a n in fe re n c e e ss e n tial to e sta b lish g u iltm a y b e fo u n d to have be en pr oved beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , eac h f actorci r cumst ance on w h ich th e in fe re n c e n e c e ss a rily re sts m u st b e p ro v e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. ¶1 4 2
. T h e tri al co u rtd en ied th is i n stru cti o n a s re p eti ti v e, say ing , “I think this i s li k e the thir d t i m e too thatI hav e h ad this instruct i on . . . m ayb e no tthe ex actw ordi ng , bu ti t ’s very cl ose t o ot he r s tha tI ’ ve a l r e a dy l oo ke d a t . ” The j ud ge c on t i nu e d: “ The S- i ns truc t i on s [ s i c] al ready t el l i ng them w hat they m ustprove. A nd un l ess the st at e h as prov ed all tho se el ement s then, beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , they c an’ tconvi cton - - bas ed on other in s tru c tio n s a lr e a d y g iv e n .” ¶143. Pi t chf

or d ar gues thatt he i ns truct i on w as neces s ary beca us e Sand s tr om v. Montana 87
re q u ire s th a t th e jur y n o t “m a k e m o re th a n o n e lea p fro m w h a t is p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t to w h a t is in fe rre d .” H o w e v e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt c lea rly laid o u t th e iss u e in Sandstr om : T he qu est i on pr es ent ed i s w hether , i n a ca s e i n w hi ch i nt enti s an el ementof the cr i m e cha r ged, the j ury i ns truct i on, “ the l aw pr es um es thata pe r s on i nt ends th e o rd in a ry c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h is v o lu n tar y a c ts,” v io late s th e F o u rte e n thId. at 512. 88 Jordan v. Stat

e , 786 So. 2d 987, 1020 (Miss. 2001) ( citing Wil ch er v . S tat e , 6 97 So . 2d 89 11 23 , 1 13 3-3 4 (M iss . 1 99 7))
. 54 2 U .S . 2 74 , 1 24 S. Ct . 2 56 2, 15 9 L. Ed . 2 d 3 84 (20 04 ). 90 

### 51 A m endment ' s r equi r ementthatthe S t at e pr ove eve ry el ementof a cr i m i nal o ffe n se b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. 88 ¶144. U nl i ke the i s s ue i n Sandstr om , no l e ga l pr e s umpt i on s op e r a t e a ga i ns t Pi t c hf or d. So Sandstr om is in a p p lica b le a n d th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r h a s n o m e rit. XI I . M I TI GATI ON- P HAS E A RGUM EN TS AND E VI DE NCE ¶145. Pi t chf

or d’ s ne xta s s i gnm entof e rr ori s thatt he tr i al cou rti m properl y di s al l ow ed
m iti g a tio n e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld h a v e a llo w e d h im to a v o id th e d e a th p e n a lty . P itch fo rd p o in ts to th re e in s ta n c e s . E ffec t o f P itch fo rd ’s d e a th o n h is c h ild ¶146. T he def

ens e att em pted t o sol i ci ttes t i m ony f r om D om i ni que H ogan, the mot her of Pi t chf or d’ s tw o- year - ol d s on, aboutt he ef f ectP i t chf

or d’ s death w oul d have on t he chi l d. T he tr i al courts us t ai ned the St at e’ s obj ect i on t o the evi dence
. ¶ 1 4 7
. T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “ [e]v id e n c e o f a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t’s d e a th a n d th e e ffe c t it
w oul d have on t he l i fe of hi s f ami l y i s notr el evantand i s pr oper l y excl uded s i nce s uch evi dence does noti m pacton the def endant ’ s charact er , the r ecor d, orthe ci r cumst ance s of the cr i m e. ” P i t chf

or d ci t es expans i ve l anguage i n T ennard v. D r et

ke f orthe pr opos i t i on 89 90 th a t th e e x c lu sio n o f th is te stim o n y v io late d h is rig h ts u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t.Id . at 2 85 (ci tation s o mitt ed) (e m ph asi s adde d). 91 

### 52 T en n ard hel d “[ a] S t at e ca nnotpr ecl ude the s ent ence rf r om cons i der i ng ‘ any r el evant
m itig a tin g e v id e n c e ’ t h a t th e d e fe n d a n t p ro ff e rs in su p p o rt o f a se n te n c e le s s th a n d e a th .” 91 ¶148. H ow ever , as w e hel d i n Jor dan , h o w th e d e a th o f a d e fe n d a n t w ill im p a c t o th e rs is si m pl y notr el evantas m i t i gat i ng evi dence , and nothi ng i n T en n ard co n tr ad ict s th is. T h is
ar gum enthas no m er i t , and the tr i al j udge comm i t t ed no err orby excl udi ng thi s i rr el evant t es t i m ony. V i deotape ¶149. Pi t chf

or d a l s o w ant ed t o pr oduce a “day- i n- the- l i f e” vi deo of hi m sel f and hi s s on in ter a c tin g . H o w e v e r, th e jail w h e re P itch fo rd w a s in c a rc e ra ted a w a iti n g trial re fu se d to al l ow Pi t chf

or d t o pr oduce the vi deo, as i tw as agai ns tj ai l pol i cy. Pi t chf or d f i l ed an e x- part e, pr etr i al m ot i on as ki ng the C our tt o or derthe Sher i f f t o al l ow Pi t chf

or d t o pr oduce the vi deo. T he tr i al j udge r ef

us ed t o gr antthe mot i on, s t at i ng atthe hear i ng, “ I ’ m notgoi ng t o overr i de the p o licy o f th e ja il. If th ey w an t t o v o lun tari ly let yo u in an d fi lm that an d then – I’d
co n side r i t atthe a p p rop ri ate ti m e w h ethe r I w o u ld a d m itso m ethin g li k e that . .
. . B u t I ’m
n o t g o in g to s ta rt m ic ro -m a n a g in g th e ja il a n d te ll th e m h o w to th e y n e e d to o p e ra te it.” ¶ 1 5 0
. P itc h fo rd a rg u e s n o w th a t “ it w a s re v e rsib le e rro r fo r th e trial c o u rt to p re v e n t th is evi dence f

r om bei ng obt ai ned. ” H ow ever , Pi t chf or d ci t es no authori ty f

orthe pr opos i t i on that the tri al j u d g e w as re q u ir ed to co m p el i ts pro d u cti o n . P it ch ford w as a d v ised b y the c o u rt thati f he w as abl e t o m ake s uch a vi deo, i tw oul d rul e on t he adm i s s i bi l i ty of s uch evi denceBrawner v. St ate , 9 47 So . 2 d 2 54 , 2 69 (Mi ss. 20 06 ). 92 

### 53 a t th e p ro p e r tim e . A s P itch fo rd h a s p re se n ted n o re lev a n t au th o rity in su p p o rt o f h is
ar gum ent , i ti s di s m i s s ed. 92 Fa m ily’s re a c tio n to fa th e r’s d e a th ¶151. Pi t chf

or d’ s next ar gum ent i s that the tr i al court err ed by r ef us i ng t o perm i t hi m t o put i nt o cont extthe mi t i gat i on e vi dence a bouthow he r eac t ed t o hi s f ather ’ s i l l nes s and dea th. H e w ant ed t o i ntr oduce i nf or m at i on abouthow the f ami l y uni tas a w hol e r eac t ed by el i ci t i ng test im o n y from h is bro ther an d m o ther. T h e p roffere d test im o n y from P it ch ford ’s bro ther,
w hich the tr i al cou rtref used to al l ow , w as as f

oll ow s: Q : O kay. H ow ol d w er e you w hen yourdad di ed? A : T en yea r s ol d. Q : W h a t ef

fe c t – h o w d id it m a k e y o u fe e l? A : I w as j us t– I w as l acki ng s om ebody i n m y l i f e. ST A T E : O bj ect i on, Y ourH onor . Y ou r H onor , thathas nothi ng t o do

w i th w hatw e ar e her e f ort oday. I have tr i ed nott o obj ectbut thi s tr i al i s noton w hatsent ence t hei rfa thershoul d get
. I ti s on w hatsent ence thi s def

endants houl d get
. I w oul d as k thatany m i t i gat i on r el at e t o thi s def endantand nots om ethi ng – D E FE N SE : I ti s goi ng t o re l at e, Y ourH onor . I ti s goi ng t o di r ect l y t ow ar ds

th e d e fe n d a n t. S T A T E : H e a lso a sk e d h o w th is w itn e ss fe lt, w h ich h a s a b so lu tely

n o th in g to d o w ith th e d e fe n d a n t. T H E C O U R T : I ’ l l s us t ai n. ¶ 1 5 2 . T h e p ro p o se d tes tim o n y fro m P itch fo rd ’s m o th e r, w h ich th e trial c o u rt re fu se d to al l ow , w as as f

oll ow s:Jordan , 786 So. 2d at 1020. 93 

### 54 Q : A n d y o u re m e m b e r w h e n T e rry ’s f a th e r d ied ; is th a t co rre c t? A : Y es. Q : A nd how di d thata f f ectTerry? Bef

or e you a ns w erthatM i s s J acks on, w hatki nd of

r el at i ons hi p di d T erry and hi s dad have ? A : T hey had a r eal cl os e r el at i ons hi p. T erry’ s a t w i n. A nd he had – i tw as the l as ttw i n, the ki ds thathe had. H i s daddy w as 57 year s ol d, and he w as s o pr oud of

thos e tw i n boys thathe had ha d. H e al w ays s ai d that there i s n o w h ere i n the w orl d thatI can go that I can’tt ake m y b oy s. A nd w hen he w as di agnos ed w i th ki dney ca ncer , D r . A r m s tr ong s ent hi m t o O xf

or d, M i s s i s s i ppi
. A nd he t ol d m e – ST A T E : Y ourH onor , I obj ect . W hatherand herhus band – D E F E N S E : Y o u r H o n o r – ST A T E : – t al ked abouti s notr el evant D E FE N SE : – m i t i gat i on – ST A T E : M ay I f

i ni s h m y obj ect i on, Y ourH onor ? W hat herand her h u sb a n d talk e d a b o u t is n o t re lev a n t o n m iti g a tio n fo r th is d e fe n d a n t.

. . . C O U R T : W el l , I thi nk you j us tatthi s poi ntneed t o r es t at e yourques t i on.

A n d I m ea n – sh e w a s g e tti n g into a n issue o f ho w – w h at D r. A r m s tr ong s ai d and how i taf f ect ed herand M r . J acks on. D E F E N S E : Y e s, sir. I u n d e rsta n d th a t. I d o n ’t th in k I a sk e d th a t. ¶1 53
. B eca us e t he t e s t i mony di d no tr e l a t e t o “ de f e nd a nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r , the r ecor d, or t he
c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e c rim e ,” th e trial c o u rt p ro p e rly e x c lu d e d it. 93 X I I I . PRES ENTATI ON OF I M PRO PER M AT TER S TO J UR Y D UR I NG PENALTY PH A SE50 1 U .S . 8 08 , 8 25 , 1 11 S. Ct . 2 59 7, 115 L. Ed . 2 d 7 20 (19 91 ). 94 80 6 S o. 2d

18 5, 22 5 (M iss . 2 00 1). 95 

### 55 ¶154. Pi t chf

or d’ s next as s i gnm ent of err or i s that the tr i al court err ed by al l ow i ng i m pr oper
ev iden ce d u ri n g the p en alty p h ase o f th e tri al. H e p o ints t o three instan ce s o f pu rpo rt ed erro r. V i ct i m - i m pact t es t i m ony ¶155. Pi t chf

or d’ s f i r s ta r gum enti s a gene r al al l egat i on, w i thouta ci t at i on t o the r ecor d, that the courtperm i t t ed the j ury t o hearvi ct i m - i m pactt es t i m ony beyond the s cope al l ow ed by t he la w . P ayne v. T

ennes ee a bol i s hed the pers e rul e aga i ns tvi ct i m - i m pactt es t i m ony, s ubj ect t o the l i m i t at i on that“[ i ] n the eventthate vi dence i s i ntr oduced thati s s o undul y pr ej udi ci al th a t itre n d e rs th e trial fu n d a m e n tally u n fa ir, th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m end m ent provides a m echan i sm for r el i ef. ” P i t chford al so ci t es R a n da ll v. S ta te f or 94 95 the pr opos i t i on thatm ember s of the vi ct i m ’ s f

ami l y w er e perm i t t ed t o gi ve evi dence about t he de c e de ntbe yo nd tha tw hi c h “ w a s r e l e va ntt o the c r i me c ha r ge d. ” A f t e rr evi ew i ng t es t i m ony of

N ett i e B r i t t( the dec edent ’ s w i f e) and K i m L i ndl ey ( hi s daught er ) , w e f i nd
n o th in g to su p p o rt P itch fo rd ’s a rg u m e n t. Hears ayMR . C ARTE R: Yo ur H on or, I w ant to ob jec t to therea ding o f t

his letter . It es sentiallylet s 96 so m eb od y els e te sti fy

wh o is no t ev enhe re. An d b ase d o n th at and ba sed on thefa ct that I h av en ’t even seen the l etter, I don’t know if anything is in there that is obje ctionable
. . . . [Mr. C art er w as t

he n a llo we d torea d th e le tte r] Th e le tte r contained an aff ection atede scription

of he r m emori es o f “Un cleBu bb a” 97 (Reuben Britt)
. 54 1 U .S . 3 6, 12 4 S .C t. 1 35 4, 15 8 L . E d. 2d 17 7 (2 00 4). 98 Th e F if th C irc uit co nc luded

that th e S ixt

h Am en dm ent do es n ot a pp ly, ev enin c ap ital 99 cases. U.S. v. Fields , 483 F.3d 313, 324-339 (5th Cir. 2007) (“we conclude that the Confrontati on Clause does not oper ate to barthe admissi onof testi mony relevant only to a capi tal sent encing autho rity’s sel ection

de cis ion ”); U. S. v. Mit

ch ell, 484 F.3d 762, 776 (5th Cir. 2007) (ci ting Un ited St ate s v. Na va rro , 1 69 F.3 d 2 28 , 2 36 (5t h C ir. 19 99 ) (" [T ]h ereis n o C on frontation Cl au se right at senten cing . . . . ")
. Othe r fe d e r a l ap pe ll at e c ourt s c on si de ri ngth is matte r h av e r ea ch edth e s ame conclusion. See e.g., Unite d States v. Stone , 4 32 F. 3d 65 1, 65 4 (6 th C ir. 20 05 ) (“ Be cau se Craw for d was concerned only with testimonial evide nc e introduced attrial , Craw ford does not change our long- settle d rule thatthe confrontati on clause does notapply in sent encing pro cee dings ”); Un ited S tat es v . L uciano , 41 4 F.3d 174, 178-80 (1s t Cir. 2005) (“N othingin Craw for d requires us to alte r our previ ous conclusion that there is no Sixth Amendm ent Co nf rontation Cl au se right at

senten cing. ”); Un ited S

tat es v . M artin ez , 413 F.3d 239, 242-43 (2d Cir. 2 00 5) ( “[ Craw

ford ] pro vides no ba sis to q

ue sti on pri or S up reme C ourt d eci sio ns that expre ssly appro ve d th e co ns ideration of out-o f- co urt

statements at se ntenc ing .” ). Se e L a n ier

v . S ta te , 53 3 So
. 2d 473, 488 (Miss. 1988) (state and federal const itutions 100 guarantee adefendant the right to confront witnes ses againsthim during the sentenci ng phase of a tri al) ; see also Wil

so n v . S tat e , 2 1 S o. 3d

57 2, 58 6-8 7 (M iss . 2 00 9). 

### 56 ¶156. D ur i ng the cour s e of her t es t i m ony, N et t i e B ri t t w as al l ow ed, over obj ect i on by t he d e fe n se , to re a d a le tter w ritten b y h e r g re a t-n iec e . P itch fo rd a rg u e s th a t th is v io late d h is

96 97 S ixth A m en d m en t ri g h t t o c o n fron t a w itn ess a g ains t him u n d er Cr aw f or d v. W as hington . 98 ¶1 5 7
. T h e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rth as n o t yet ruled o n w h ethe r Craw ford e x ten d s to th e se n ten c in g p h a se o f a trial. W h ile w e a re a w a re o f f e d e ra l a u th o rity th a t th e S ix th A m endmentdoes notappl y ats ent enci ng pr oceedi ng s, thi s C our t ’ s pr ece denthol ds 99 otherw i s e. 100U.S. Const. am end. VI. 101 La nier , 533 So. 2d at 476. 102 Id. at 486. 103Id. at 487. 104 Id. 105Id. 106 Id. at 488. 107 

### 57 ¶158. T he C onf

r ont at i on C l aus e of the Si xth A m endment of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des that , “I n al l cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , the ac cus ed s hal l enj oy the r i ght
. . . t o be conf r ont ed w i t h t he w i tnes s es agai ns thi m . ” A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 26 of the M i s s i s s i ppi 101 C ons t i tut i on al s o pr ovi des t hat , “I n al l cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , the ac cus ed s hal l have a r i ght

. . . t o be conf

r ont ed by the w i tnes s es agai ns thi m . ” ¶159. I n L ani er , t he def endantw as f

ound gui l ty of

capi t al murde r . D ur i ng the s ent enci ng 102 phas e, the tr i al courtal l ow ed t he pr os ecut i on t o cr os s - exami ne a def ens e w i tnes s w i th a l ett er
w r i t t en by tw o doct or s f r om the M i s s i s s i ppi St at e H os pi t al atW hi t f i el d. T he pr os ecut or 103
w as noti m peac hi ng the w i tnes s w i th the l ett er , butr atherw as us i ng the l ett ert o “ s ugges tt hat other s ( m or e compet entthatthe w i t nes s ) di s agr eed w i th the w i tnes s ’ concl us i on - - f ort he p u rp o se o f d isp ro v in g th e w itn e ss e s c o n c lu sio n .” T h e lette r w a s n e ith e r e n ter e d in to 104
e v id e n c e n o r d isc u ss e d d u rin g th e g u iltp h a se o f th e trial. 105 ¶160. O n appea l , L ani eral l eged thatthe us e of the l ett erw as a vi ol at i on of the C onf r ont at i on C la u s e o f t h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. T h is C o u rt h e ld “ [t ]h e ri g h t o f a c ri m in a l d e fe n d a n t . . 106 . to c ro s s e x a m in e th e w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im is a t th e h e a rt o f t h e c o n fr o n ta ti o n c la u s e .” 107 T he C our tf

ur therhel d t hatId. (citi ng La faveand Israel, Crim ina l Pro ced ure § 2 3. 3(d ,8 77 ) (1 98 5). 108 

### 58 the manneri n w hi ch the St at e ut i l i zed the W hi t f i el d l ett eraf

f or ded Lani erno oppor tuni ty t o c r os s - exami ne the concl us i ons of the s ever al doct or s . T he l ett er as pr evi ous l y not ed w as obvi ous l y vi ol at i ve of ourhear s ay rul es . B ut , over a n d ab o u t th e fac t th a t th e letter w a s in the p re se n t ca s e w a s in a d m iss ib le h e a rs a y , the conf

r ontat i on claus e act

s s o as to e ven r es tr i ct

pr oof w hi ch under o u re v id e n c e r u le s w o u ldb e c la s s ifie d a s ‘a dm is s ib le h e a rs a

y .’ 108 ¶ 161. I n thi s cas e, the tr i al courterr ed i n al l ow i ng N el l i e B r i t tt o r ead the l ett erw r i t t en by hergr eat - ni ece . J us tas i n L ani er , Pi t chf or d had no opportuni ty t o cr os s - exami ne the author of the l ett er . H ow ever , aft er care f ul l y r evi ew i ng the cont ent s of the l ett er , i n l i ghtof

t he t ot al i ty of

the evi dence pr es ent ed dur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e, w e concl ude thatthe err orw as harm l ess. S ta te a rg u m e n ts ¶162. Pi t chf

or d’ s thi r d a r gum enti s thatthe tr i al c our ti m pr oper l y a l l ow ed the St at e t o m ake
a s t at ement . A f

t erthe St at e had f

i ni s hed i t s cas e dur i ng t he pen al ty ph as e, the f ol l ow i ng
o c c u rre d a s th e d e fe n se a ttem p ted to m a k e a n o p e n in g sta tem e n t: M R
. C A R T E R : I w a n t to m a k e a n o p e n in g b e fo re I do it
. It sh o u ld o n ly

take tw o o r th ree m inu tes. It i s p erfec tl y fi n e fo r M r. E vans t o puthi s w i tnes s on the s t and. I am not w ai vi ng m i ne. M R
. E V A N S: I am not w ai vi ng m i ne. M R
. C A R T E R : I have a ri ght t o do i t . It w i l l onl y t ake m e t w o orthr ee

m i nu t es before I cal l a w i tness. M R. EV A N S: I am not w a i vi ng a ny thi ng . I t i s my un de r s t a nd i ng t hat

n o b o d y a sk e d fo r a n o p e n in g sta tem e n t. M R
. C A R T E R : I am aski ng f orone. T H E C O U R T : I’ l l give you tw o m i nu t es. M R. EV A N S: I ’ d l i ke t o do m i ne w he n he g e t s thr ough t hen, Y our

H o n o r. M R . C A R T E R : Y o u w a iv e d it. M R
. E V A N S: N o, I haven’ t . I w as n’ tgi ven an opportuni ty.

. . .73 5 S o. 2d 14 5, 16 0 (M iss . 1 99 9). 109Id. 110 

### 59 T H E C O U R T : I f you give on e, you ar e goi ng t o gi ve i t bef or e he goes f orw ar d w i th hi s . A f

t erthe def

ense gi ves an openi ng sta tem e n t – w e ll, I m e a n w h a t I’m sa y in g is p ro c e d u ra lly the St at e goes f

i r s ton openi ng s t at ement s . So i f the d e fe n se w a n ts to m a k e a n o p e n in g , the n th e S tate w a n ts t o. T hen you ca n. M R
. C A R T E R : L etm e j us ts ay f orthe r ecor d thatw e obj ectt o M r . E vans att his p oi ntm aki ng an openi ng s t at ementas he has al r eady c al l ed w i tnes s es and puton hi s c as e and di d not m ake one
. N ow , he has a r i ghtt o m ake a cl os i ng sta tem e n t, j u st a s I d o . B u t h e d o e s n o t h a v e a rig h t to m ake a n openi ng s t at ementaf t erhe ca l l ed al l w i tnes s es and r es t ed. T H E C O U R T : W el l , i t ’ s m y opi ni on t hat, that w hen nei ther s i de as ked

fo r a n o p e n in g s ta te m e n t w h e n th is C o u rt p ro c e e d e d , I consi der ed thati tw as w ai ved. I ’ ve neve rs een ope ni ng s ta te m e n ts a t th is p h a s e o f t h e tr ia l. M R
. C A R T E R : I do them in ev ery ca se, Y o u r H o n o r. T H E C O U R T : W e ll, I h a v e n e v e r se e n it. M R
. E V A N S : I’ve n ev er se en iteith er. THE CO UR T: So I consi der ed i tw a i ve d. But i n f a i r ne s s t o t he pr os ecut i on, i f

the def ens e w i s hes t o m ake one , t hen I thi nk the pr os ecut i on has a r i ghtt o m ake one
. ¶163. Pi t chfor d ar gues thatt hi s w as err orand an a bus e of di s cr et i on, ci t i ng McFadden v. Missi ssi pp iState B oa rd of Medical L i cen sure . I n McFadden , w hi ch i nvol ved an appe al

109 f r om an admi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng, thi s C our ts t at ed: D r. M c F a d d e n als o su g g e sts tha t be c a u se the re w e re n o o p e n in g a rg u m e n ts in this case this som eho w con tri bu t ed to the all eged den i al of hi s due p rocess r i ght s . Fi r s t , i ts houl d be not ed D r . M cF adden made no cont empora neous obj ect i on t o t he B oar d' s deci s i on t o w ai ve openi ng s t at ement s . Second, openi ng s t at ement s ar e of t en w ai ved i n cas es w her e ther e i s al r eady a gener al u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e iss u e s to b e a d d re ss e d . T h e re fo re , w e c o n c lu d e th is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. 110Brawner v. St ate , 9 47 So . 2 d 2 54 , 2 69 (Mi ss. 20 06 ). 111 Rubenstein v. State, 941 So. 2d 735, 787 (Miss. 2006) ( citing Go od in v. St ate , 787 So. 2d 112 639, 657 (Miss. 2001) ). Thorson , 895 So. 2d at 107 (cit ing Hei del v. St ate , 5 87 So . 2 d 8 35 , 8 42 (Mi ss. 19 91 )). 113Id. 114 

### 60 W e f i nd McFadden i nappos i t e t o thi s m att er. A s Pi t chf or d has pr es ent ed no r el evant author i ty i n s uppor tof

hi s ar gum ent , i ti s di s m i s s ed. 111 XI V. W HE T HE R T HE S E NT E NC I NG P HA S E I NS T RU CT I ON S W ER E DE F I CI EN T
. ¶1 64
. Pi t c hf

or d’ s f ou r t e e nth a s s i gn mento f e rr ori s tha tSe nt e nc i ng I ns t ruct i on 1 di d not expr es s l y i nf

or m the j ury t hat , even though i tm i ghtfi nd t he aggr avat i ng fa ct or s outw ei ghed the m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s , i tcoul d never thel es s sent ence hi m t o l i f e. H e cl ai m s the tr i al
courts houl d nothave r ef us ed hi s pr opos ed i ns truct i on D S- 7, w hi ch s t at ed: Y o u m a y fi n d that d ea th is no t w arran ted e v en if there are o n e o r m o re ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s an d n o t a sing le m it igating cir cu m stan ce . Y o u are notr equi r ed t o f

i nd a ny mi t i gat i ng c i r cumst ance s i n or dert o r eturn a s ent ence of l i fe i m pri s onm ent . N ordoes the f i ndi ng of an aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance , r equi r e thatyou r eturn a s ent ence of dea th. Y ou, as a j ur or , al w ays have the opt i on t o s ent ence Pi t chf or d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm ent , w hat everf i ndi ngs you m ay m ake. ¶1 65
. A s s t at ed above , “ j ury i ns truc t i on s a r e wi thi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of t he t r i al
court . ” O n r evi ew , j ury i ns truct i ons s houl d be r ead t ogether , t aken a s a w hol e, a nd no one

112 i ns truct i on s houl d be t aken outof cont ext . A def

endanti s ent i t l ed t o have hi s theory of t he 113
cas e pr es ent ed i n the j ury i ns truct i ons . But the ent i t l ementi s l i m i t ed, and the courtm ay 114Id. 115 

### 61 r ef us e an i ns truct i on i f

i t“i ncorr ect l y s t at es the l aw , i s cover ed f ai rl y el sew her e i n t he in s tru c tio n s , o r i s w ith o u t f o u n d a tio n in th e e v id e n c e .” 115 ¶ 1 6 6
. S e n ten c in g In stru c tio n 1 re a d s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: [ T ] o return t he d eat h p enalty, yo u m ustfi nd the m i t i gati ng c ir cu m st ances – thos e w hi ch t end t o w arr antthe l es s s ever e pena l ty of l i f e i m pri sonm ent w i thoutpar ol e – do notout w ei gh t he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s – w hi ch t end to w arran t th e d ea th p en alty . . . . If n o n e o f the ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s are f ound t o exi s t , the dea th penal ty m ay notbe i m pos ed .
. . . I f one orboth of

the

. . . ag g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s a re fo u n d to e x ist b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, then you mustcons i derw hetherthere are m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s w hi ch outw ei gh t he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s . . . . I f you f i nd f r om the evi dence that one o r m ore of the .
. . el em ents of m i t i gati on exist s, the n y o u m ust cons i derw hetheri t( ort hey) outw ei gh( s ) orover come (s ) any a ggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s you p revi ous l y f ound. I n the eve ntthatyou f i nd thatthe m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance [ s ] do notoutw ei gh or overc om e the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance , you m ay i m pos e the dea th s ent ence . Shoul d you f i nd the m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance ( s ) outw ei gh orover come t he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s , you s hal l noti m pos e the dea th s ent ence . ¶ 1 6 7
. T h e in stru c tio n d o e s n o t re q u ire th e ju ry to im p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty , e v e n sh o u ld it f i nd the aggr avat i ng f

act or s outw ei ghed t he m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s . T he i ns truct i on
m er el y i nf

or m s the j ury that , s houl d i tf i nd “ the m i t i gat i ng c i r cumst ance [ s ] do notoutw ei gh
o r o v e rc o m e th e a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e , [it] m ay i m pos e the dea th s ent ence . ” The t r i al
court ’ s us e of

the t erm “m ay” – w hi l e notthe s tr onges tl anguage t o m ake the poi nt– w as
s uf fi ci ent t o convey t o the j ury thati tw as notr equi r ed t o i m pos e the dea th penal ty, even
s houl d i tf

i nd the aggr avat i ng f

act or s outw ei ghed thos e s ubm i t t ed i n m i t i gat i on. ¶1 68
. Fur t her m or e, t hi s Cour th a s s pe c i f i c a l l y he l d, “ a d e f

e nd a nti s notent i t l ed t o an i ns tructi on thatthe j ury m ay r eturn a l i f e s ent ence even i f

the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s outw ei gh t he mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s ori f t hey d o notf i nd any mi t i gat i ngKi ng v. St ate , 960 So. 2d 413, 442 (Miss. 2007) ( citing Hol lan d v. St ate , 705 So. 2d 307, 116 354 (Miss. 1997) , Han sen v . S tat e , 592 So. 2d 114, 150 (Miss. 1991), Go od in v. St ate , 787 So. 2d 639, 657 (Miss. 2001) , Foster v. St ate , 6 39 So . 2 d 1 26 3, 13 01 (Mi ss. 19 94 )). Kans asv. Ma rsh , 5 48 U. S. 16 3, 17 1, 12 6 S . C t. 2 51 6, 16 5 L . E d. 2d 42 9 (2 00 6). 117Id. 118 

### 62 c irc u m sta n c e s .” B a se d o n th e trial c o u rt’s in stru c tio n a n d o u r p re c e d e n t, w e fin d th is 116
a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e rit. ¶169. Pi t chf

or d a l s o a s s ert s thatthe tr i al c our t err ed i n f ai l i ng t o gi ve f

ourof hi s pr opos ed sent encing i nst ruct i on s, w hich ar e as f oll ow s: D S -8 : T h e C o u rt i n stru c ts y o u , th e jur y , th a t i f y o u ca n n o t, w ith in a re a so n a b le am ou nt of

t i m e, agree as t o p un i shm ent, the C ou rtw i l l di sm i ss you an d im po se a s ent ence of

i m pr i s onm entf

orl i f e w i thoutthe bene f

i tof par ol e. D S- 13 : I have pr evi ous l y r ead t o you the aggr avat i ng c i r cumst ance s w hi ch the l aw perm i t s you t o cons i der
. T hes e ar e the onl y aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s you m ay cons i der
. H ow everbef or e you m ay cons i dera ny of thes e f act or s you m u st fin d th a t fa c to r is e sta b lish e d b y e v id e n c e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. D S- 15 : I f yo u the J u ry c h o o ses [sic] to se n tenc e M r. P it ch ford to li fe i m pr i s onm entw i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e, M r . Pi t chf

or d w i l l neverbe el i gi bl e f orpar ol e. Fur ther , hi s l i f e s ent ence w i thoutposs i bi l i ty of pr obat i on orpar ol e ca nnotbe r educe d ors us pended. ¶170. T he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ha s s ai d, “ as a r equi r ementof i ndi vi dual i zed
s ent enci ng, a j ury m us thave t he oppor tuni ty t o consi deral l evi dence r el evantt o m i t i gat i on,
a n d th a t a s tate sta tu te th a t pe rm its a ju ry to c o n sid e r a n y m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e c o m p o rts w ith th a t re q u ire m e n t.” T h e C o u rt a lso p o in ted o u t th a t: 117
w hi l e the C ons t i tut i on r equi r es thata s ent enci ng j ury have di s cr et i on, i tdoes notmandat e thatdi s cr et i on be unf ett er ed; the St at es a r e f

r ee t o det erm i ne the m anneri n w hich a j ury m ay cons i derm i t i gat i ng evi dence
. So l ong as the s e n te n c e r i s n o t p re c lu d e d fr o m c o n s id e ri n g re le v a n t m itig a tin g e v id e n c e , a capit al sent encing st atute canno tbe sai d to i m perm i ssi bly, m uch l ess aut om at i cal l y, i m pos e dea th. 118Se eMis s. Co deAnn. § 9 9-1 9-1 03 (Rev . 2 00 7). 119 895 So. 2d at 107. 120 Rubenstein, 94 1 S o. 2d

at 7 93 (em

ph asi s adde d). 121 

### 63 ¶171. Pi t chf

or d corr ect l y argues thatD S -8 compl i es w i th the l ett erof M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 103. St i l l , the tr i al cour tw as w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on t o deny the i ns truct i on, 119
r eas oni ng , “ [ t ] hi s w ou l d i nd i c a t e t o the j ury tha ta c e r t a i n d e a dl i ne w a s go i ng t o b e s e tf or th e m a n d afte r th a t th e y co u ld n ’t –tha t th e c a se w o u ld b e tak e n a w a y fro m th e m .” W e w ill nothol d the tr i al courti n err orf orr ef us i ng the i ns truct i on. ¶172. T he tr i al courtr ef us ed D S- 13 as cumul at i ve, s t at i ng, [ T he j ury] has al r eady be en i ns truct ed thatthey ar e ca ut i oned nott o be s w ayed by, a m ong otherthi ngs , pr ej udi ce. . . . [ T he j ury i ns truct i on] a l s o t el l s them w hatf act or s they have t o use. A nd so I don’tt hi nk they nee d t o be t ol d w hat fac tors the y d o n ’th av e to u se sin ce they h av e a lr ea d y b ee n told w h ich fa ctors they do have t o us e. ¶173. T he tr i al court w as w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on t o deny D S- 13 as “cove r ed f ai r l y el s ew her e”
u n d er T hors on . 120 ¶174. A s t o D S- 15, the tr i al courthe l d: “S- 1A a l r eady t el l s them t hati t ’ s ei therl i f e w i thout p a ro le o r d e a th p e n a lty . S o [th e ju ry ] i s a w a re o f th a t. A n d I d o n ’t se e th a t D S -1 5 n e e d s to be gi ven. I t ’ s al r eady be en, been gi ven once . ” Pi t chf or d neverthel es s ar gues that , w i thout
a more s peci f

i c i ns truct i on, the j ury w as l ef tt o s pecul at e as t o w hetherhe a ctual l y w oul d be sent enced t o spen d the r em ai nd er of his natur al l i fe behi nd bars. ¶175. T hi s C ou rth as sai d a tr i al co urt ’s “fai l ure t o i nclude t he st atut or i l y r equi r ed
se n tenc ing o p ti o n o f l i

f e w i thoutthe pos s i bi l i t

y of par ol e c o n s titu te s re v e rs ib le e rr o r.” 121 H er e, how ever , t he tr i al courtcl ear l y i ncl uded an i ns truct i on thatPi t chf or d coul d be

### 64

se n ten c e d to “ life im p riso n m e n t w ith o u t p a ro le.” T h u s, w e fin d th e trial c o u rt w a s w ith in its d iscreti o n to d en y D S -15 , as itw as “ fairl y co v ere d elsew h ere ” u n d er T hors on . ¶1 7 6
. P it ch for d c o m p lain s th a t tw o crit ical i n stru cti o n s – o n e re g ard ing a v erd icto f li fe
w ith o u t p a ro le, a n d th e o th e r c o n c e rn in g w h a t th e ju ry w a s to d o in th e e v e n t itw a s u n a b le t o agr ee una ni m ous l y on a s ent ence – w er e on a s epar at e page f r om the i ns truct i ons
conce rni ng a pos s i bl e dea th s ent ence . H e cl ai m s thi s pos si bl y s ugges t ed t o the j ury that death w as the pr ef

err ed s ent ence . ¶177. T he tr i al c our t , r es pondi ng t o thi s a r gum ent , eval uat ed the f or m of the i ns truct i ons and f ound that , “[ i ] ti s noti n the l eas tbi ts ugges t i ve they ar e t o do one overthe other
. ” W e agr ee,
a n d fin d n o m e rit to th is a rg u m e n t. ¶178. Fi nal l y, Pi t chf

or d ar gues that the tr i al court err ed i n f ai l i ng t o al l ow t he m i t i gat i ng fa c to r – “ M r. P itch fo rd h a d m e n tal h e a lth p ro b lem s a s a c h ild th a t w e re n e v e r tre a ted ” – to be cons i der ed by the j ury. W hen pr es ent ed w i th thi s ar gum ent , the tr i al courts t at ed, “The f acti s w e don’ thave a ny doct orthathas t es t i f i ed t o t hat. W e don’ thave a nythi ng i n t he
re c o rd th a t a t a ll s u p p o rt s th a t P itc h fo rd h a d a n y m e n ta l h e a lth p ro b le m s .” ¶ 1 7 9
. W e w ill n o t h o ld th e tria l c o u rt in e rro r f o r r e fu sin g to s u b m it a m itig a tin g fa c to r to th e ju ry w h ich w a s n o t g ro u n d e d in th e e v id e n c e . T h u s, th is iss u e h a s n o m e rit. XV . W HE T HE R T HE DE AT H P E NA L T Y V I OL AT E S T HE CO NS T I T UT I ON OF TH E U N I TE D STA TE S. ¶180. Pi t chf

or d next ar gues that hi s death s ent ence m us t be vaca t ed beca us e i t vi ol at es t he C on st i tuti on of the U nit ed S t at es. B az e v. R ees553 U.S. 35, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 170 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2008). 122 

### 65 ¶181. Pi t chf

or d f i r s tar gues thathi s exec ut i on by l ethal i nj ect i on w oul d be i n vi ol at i on of the E i ghth A m endmentpr ohi bi t i on agai ns tcruel and u nu sual puni s hm ent , bas ed on B az e v. R ees . T h is a rg u m e n t re p e a ted ly h a s b e e n re jec ted b y th is C o u rt. A s w e rec e n tly sta ted in 122 G o ff v . S ta te : O n A pr i l 16, 20 08, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdeci ded B az e v. R ees , up ho l di ng t he St at e of K entucky' s l ethal
- i nj ect i on pr ot ocol as notbei ng v io la tiv e o f t h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. B az e v. R ees , --- U .S . ----, 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 5 2 0 , 1 7 0 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 2 0 (2 0 0 8 ). In so d o in g , C h ief Ju stic e R o b e rts' s p lu ra lity opi ni on announce d the s t andar d w hi ch w e m us tus e t o det erm i ne w hetherour m e th o d o f e x e c u tio n v io la te s th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. Id
. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t 's pl ur al i ty f

ound thatcrue l a ndun us ua l pu ni s hmen toc c ur s w her e l ethal i nj ect i on as an executi on m et ho d present s a “subst anti al ” or “obj ect i vely i ntol erabl e ri sk of s er i ous harm ” i n l i ghtof “f eas i bl e, r eadi l y i m pl ement ed” a l t ernat i ve p ro c e d u re s . Id
. at1531, 1532. H ow ever , the ana l ys i s w as f ocus ed on the m annerof

l ethal i nj ect i on, and di d n otquest i on t he val i di ty of l ethal i nj ect i on o r t h e c o n s titu ti o n a li ty o f t h e d e a th p e n a lty a s s u c h
. Id
. at1537. T he B aze C our thel d: K entucky has adopt ed a method of exec ut i on bel i eved t o b e the m o st h u m a n e a v a ilab le, o n e it sh a re s w ith 3 5 o th e r S tate s . . . [w h ich ] i f admi ni s t er ed as i nt ended .
. . w i l l r es ul ti n a pai nl es s death. T he r i s ks of m al admi ni s tr at i on . . . s uch as i m pr operm i xi ng of chemi cal s and i m pr oper se tti n g o f IV s b y tra in e d a n d e x p e rie n c e d p e rso n n e l - - c a n n o t b e re m o tely c h a ra c ter ize d a s “ o b

jec tiv e ly in to ler a b le.” K e n tu c k y ' s d e c isio n to a d h e re to its pr ot ocol des pi t e thes e as s ert ed r i s ks , w hi l e adopt i ng s af eguar ds t o pr ot ect a g a in st th e m , ca n n o t b e v iew e d a s p ro b a tiv e o f t h e w a n to n in flictio n o f p a in u n d e r t h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. B aze , 128 S. C t . at1537. For“the di s pos i t i on of ot hercas es uncert ai n, ” J us t i ce Rober t s cl ear l y s t at ed t hat“[ a ] St a t e w i th a l e tha l i nj e c t i on pr ot oc ol s ub s t a nt i a l l y s i mi l a rt o the pr ot ocol w e uphol d t oday w oul d notcr eat e a r i s k t hatm eet s [ the ‘ s ubs t ant i al r i s k’ ] s t andar d. ” Id
. at 15 3 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). I f di f f er ence s exi s tbet w een M i s s i s s i ppi ' s execut i on prot ocol s and t hos e us ed i n K entucky, then, the i nqui r y i s w hethe rM i s s i s s i pp i ' s l e tha l
- i nj e c t i on pr ot oc ol m eet s Const i tut i onal must eri n l i ghtof thi s r ece ntSupr eme C our tdeci s i on. T h e F i f th C i r c u i t , w h e n c o n s i d e r i n g i n m a t e D a l e L e o B i s h o p 's E i gh th-A m end m ent chal l eng e t o M i ssi ssi pp i ' s l et hal- i nject i on proced ures, r ece nt l y announce d that“M i s s i s s i ppi ' s l ethal i nj ect i on prot ocol appear s t o beGo ff v . S tat e , 14 So. 3d 625, 665-66 (Miss. 2009) (quoting Benn ett v. S tat e , 990 So. 2d 123 155, 160-61 (Miss . 2008)). 53 0 U .S . 4 66 , 1 20 S. Ct . 2 34 8, 14 7 L . E d. 2d 43 5 (2 00 0). 124 53 6 U .S . 5 84 , 1 22 S. Ct . 2 42 8, 15 3 L . E d. 2d 55 6 (2 00 2). 125Hod ges v. St ate , 9 12 So . 2 d 7 30 , 7 75 (Mi ss. 20 05 ). 126 

### 66 s ubs t ant i al l y s i m i l art o K entucky' s pr ot ocol thatw as exami ned i n B aze .” W al kerv. E pps , 287 Fed. A ppx. 371 , 2 008 W L 2796878, 2008 U
. S. A pp. L E X IS 1 5 5 4 7 a t [* 1 3 ] (5 th C ir. M iss . Ju ly 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 ). W e a g re e w ith th e F ifth C i r cui t ' s anal ys i s , and hol d t hatBennet t ' s Ei ghth A m endmentc hal l enge t o the leth a l in jec tio n p ro to c o l in M iss iss ip p i is w ith o u t m e rit. 123 ¶182. B as ed on ourr eas oni ng i n G o ff , w e h o ld th is a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e rit. Fai l ur e to I

ncl ude Aggravat i ng C i r cum s tances i n I ndi ctm ent ¶ 183. T he i ndi ctm entagai ns tPi t chf or d s t at ed that
on or a boutthe 7th day of N ovember2004, i n G r enada C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi and w i thi n the j ur i s di ct i on of t hi s C our t , w hi l e act i ng i n concertw i th another orw hi l e ai di ng, abett i ng, as s i s t i ng orencour agi ng another , di d w i l l f ul l y, f el oni ous l y, i nt ent i onal l y, w i thoutauthor i ty of l aw and w i t h orw i thoutthe del i ber at e des i gn t o ef

f ectdeath, ki l l and murde rReuben Bri t t , a human bei ng, w h ile e n g a g e d in th e fe lo n y c ri m e o f A R M E D R O B B E R Y , as se t fo rth in s ect i on 97- 3- 79 of

M I SS. C O D E A N N
. and i n vi ol at i on of s ect i on 97- 3- 19 ( 2) ( e) M I SS. C O D E A N N
. as amended, and agai ns tt he peac e and di gni ty of the S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. ¶184. R el yi ng on A

ppr endiv. N

ew Jers ey and R ing v. A r i z ona, Pi t chf

or d ar gues t hat 124 125 th e in d ictm e n t fa ile d to c h a rg e a ll ele m e n ts n e c e ss a ry to im p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty . T h is C our tr epea t edl y has hel d that“thes e ca s es have no appl i cat i on t o M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s capi t al
m ur ders ent enci ng s cheme. ” A s thi s C our tr ece nt l y s t at ed: 126 T hi s C our tr epeat edly has r ej ect ed thi s type of ar gum ent . W e have hel d that A ppr endiand Ringaddr es s i s s ues w hol l y dis t i nctf r om the pr es entone, and in fa c t d o n o t a d d re s s in d ic tm e n ts a t all. T h e p u rp o se o f a n in d ictm e n t is to f urni s h the def

endantw i th not i ce and a r eas onabl e des cr i pt i on of the cha r ges a g a in st h im so th a t h e m a y p re p a re h is d e fe n se . A n ind ictm e n t is re q u ire d o n lyGo ff , 14 So . 3 d at 66 5 (c itatio ns omitt ed). 127 54 8 U .S . 1 63 , 1 26 S. Ct . 2 51 6, 16 5 L . E d. 2d 42 9 (2 00 6). 128 See e.g. Ross v

. S tat e , 954 So. 2d 968, 1014 ( Mis s. 2007) (“The use of the unde rlying 129 fe lony a s an

ag gravator

wa s n ot erro r.” ). 

### 67 t o have a cl earand conc i s e s t at ementof the el ement s of

the cr i m e w i th w hi ch the def endanti s char ged. U nderM i s s i s s i ppi l aw , the under l yi ng f el ony thatel evat es the cr i m e t o capi t al m ur derm us tbe i dent i f i ed i n the i ndi ctm ental ong w i th the s ect i on and su b sec ti o n o f th e statute u n d er w h ich th e d efe n d an t i s b eing ch arg ed
. In addi t i on, “[ o] urdeath penal ty s t atut e cl ear l y s t at es the onl y aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s w hi ch may be r el i ed upon by the pr os ecut i on i n seeki ng the u ltim a te p u n is h m e n t.” W hen G of

f w as char ged w i th capi t al m ur der , he w as puton not i ce thatt he death penal ty m i ghtr es ul t , w hataggr avat i ng fa ct or s m i ghtbe us ed, and the m ens r ea s t andar d t hatw as r equi r ed. 127 ¶185. Pi t chf

or d a r gues thi s Court ’ s pr evi ous hol di ngs are cl earl y err on eou s i n li gh t of K an sas v. Marsh beca us e, acc or di ng t o Pi t chf or d: 128 [ O ] n the w ay t o r eac hi ng i t s concl us i on the C our tcompar ed the K ans as s cheme t o the A r i zona s cheme and f oun d them ess ent i al l y the s ame. M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s s cheme i s i ndi s t i ngui s habl e f r om K ans as . T hus the pos i t i on that R ing v. A r i

z ona h a s n o a p p lica tio n to M iss iss ip p i’s s c h e m e , is in c o rre c t. ¶186. W e f

i nd Mars h d o e sn ’t a p p ly a n d th is a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e rit. D ualus e of

r obber y as capi tal iz erand aggr avator ¶ 187. Pi t chf

or d n e xtu r ge s thi s Courtt o r e vi s i ti t s p r i orh ol di ng s a l l owi ng the us e of an under l ying fe l ony t o both el evat e the cr i m e t o capi t al m ur derand t o actas an aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance . A f

t err evi ew i ng the mat t er , w e f i nd no compel l i ng r eas on t o r ever s e our 129 pos i t i on on thi s m att erand, thus , w e dec l i ne t o do s o. Enm und A nd T is on45 8 U .S . 7 82 , 1 02 S. Ct . 3 36 8, 73 L. Ed . 2 d 1 14 0 (1 98 2). 130 48 1 U .S . 1 37 , 1 07 S. Ct . 1 67 6, 95 L. Ed . 2 d 1 27 (19 87 ). 131 

### 68 ¶18 8. P i t chford’s fi nal assi gn m ent of err or on this i ssue i s that the verdi ct returned a gainst hi m vi ol at es the hol di ng i n E nm und v. Flor ida and Tis on v. Ari z ona . T h e se c a se s h o ld 130 131 th a t th e d e a th p e n a lty m a y n o t b e im p o se d o n a d e fe n d a n t w h o a id s a n d a b e ts, b u t w h o d id notcomm i tthe m ur der , unl es s t he def endantat t empt ed t o comm i tthe murde r , i nt ended that the murde rt ake pl ace , orunder s t ood thatl ethal f or ce w oul d, orm i gh t , be us ed i n t he
comm i s s i on of

the under l yi ng f

el ony. ¶ 1 8 9
. T h e ju ry u n a n im o u sly fo u n d th a t P itch fo rd a c tu a lly k ill e d R e u b e n B ritt, a ttem p ted to ki l l R euben Bri t t , i nt ended the ki l l i ng o f R eub en B r i t t , and cont empl at ed thatl ethal f or ce
w ould be empl oyed. Pi t chf or d ar gues thatthe t es t i m ony s how i ng he per s onal l y ki l l ed, att empt ed t o ki l l , or i nt ended t o ki l l R euben B r i t tw as adm i t t ed i n er r or , nam el y t he t es t i m ony d is c u s s e d in Is s u e s V a n d IX , supra . A s pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed, how ever , w e f ound no err or
w ith re sp e c t to th o se iss u e s a n d so th is a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e rit. XV I . W H E T H E R T H E D E A T H S E N T E N C E IN T H IS C A S E IS CO NST I TUTI ON ALLY O R ST ATUTO RI LY DI S PROPORTI ON ATE
. ¶190. T hi s C our t i s r equi r ed by s t atut e t o per f or m a pr opor t i onal i ty r evi ew w hen r evi ew i ng the im po si t i on of a death sent ence. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 99 -19-105 (3) st at es: ( 3) W i th r egar d t o t he s ent ence , the courts hal l det erm i ne: ( a) W hetherthe s ent ence of de ath w as i m pos ed underthe i nf l uence o f pa ssion , p rejud ice o r an y o ther a rbitrary fac tor; (b) W h ethe r th e e v iden ce su p p o rt s th e jury ' s o r j u d g e' s fi n d ing o f a s t a tut ory a gg r a va t i ng c i r c ums t a nc e a s e nu mer a t e d i n Se ct i on 99- 19- 101;Mis s. Co deAnn. § 9 9-1 9-1 05 (3) (Rev . 2 00 7). 132 Se eMis s. Co deAnn. § 9 9-1 9-1 05 (3) (a) (Rev . 2 00 7). 133 

### 69 (c ) W h e th e r th e se n ten c e o f d e a th is e x c e ss iv e o r d isp ro p o rtio n a te t o t he penal ty i m pos ed i n s i m i l arcas es , cons i der i ng both the c ri m e a n d th e d e fe n d a n t. . . . 132 ¶191. Pi t chf

or d s ubm i t s nei t her argum ent nor ev i den ce thatthe se nt ence of death w as i m pos ed underthe i nf

l uence of

pa s s i on, pr ej udi ce, ora ny othera rbi tr ary fact or. A f t er
rev iew ing the re co rd in this ap p ea l, w e c a n n o t sa y the re co rd e stab li sh es th at P it ch ford ’s d ea th se n tenc e w as im p o sed u n d er the infl u en ce of pa ssion , preju d ice, o r an y o ther a rbitrary fac tor. 133 ¶192. Fur therm or e, w e f i nd t her e w as suf

f i ci entevi dence t o supportt he j ury’ s f i ndi ng of the
s t atut ory aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance enumer at ed by M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 101( d) ( “The capi t al of

f ens e w as co m m i t t ed w hi l e the def endantw as engage d, orw as an
acc om pl i ce, i n the comm i s s i on of , oran att empt t o comm i t , orf l i ghtaft er com m i t t i ng or att em p ti n g to co m m it , an y rob b ery . . . ”). ¶ 1 9 3
. P i t c h f

o r d a r g u e s th a t th e d e a th p e n a l ty wo u l d b e d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e i n th i s c a s e . He
ar gues that , underthe evi dence t o s uppor tthe convi ct i on, the admi s s i bl e pr oof s how s t hat “M r . Pi t chf

or d w as a w i l l i ng part i ci panti n a r obbery, butthathi s co- def endanti ni t i at ed the fa tal c o n d u c t in a n a c t o f p a n ic w h e n h e s a w th e d e c e d e n t w ith a g u n a n d M r. P itch fo rd o n ly i nf l i ct ed s epar at e, non- l ethal i nj ur i es . ” H e al s o ar gues thatthe dea th penal ty w oul d be di s pr opor t i onat e i n thi s cas e bec aus e Pi t chf or d’ s acc om pl i ce, Er i c B ul l i ns , w ho w as s i xt een year s ol d atthe t i m e of

the cr i m e, a cce pt ed a pl ea of m ans l aught erand i s s ervi ng a s ent ence of f orty y ears .See, e.g., Doss v . S tat e , 7 09 So . 2 d 3 69 , 4 01 (Mi ss. 19 96 ) (h oldingco nv iction an d s enten ce 134 appropri atewh erea groc ery sto re c ler k w as s ho t an d kill ed

d uringth e co urs e o f a

robbe ry) ; Cabello v. St ate , 4 71 So . 2 d 3 32 , 3 50 (Mi ss. 19 85 ). 81 2 S o. 2d

93 4 (M iss . 2 00 2). 135Id. at 948-49. 136 Id. 137 

### 70 ¶194. T aki ng at f

ace val ue Pi t chf

or d’ s cl ai m t hat he fi red the
. 38 w eapon l oaded w i th r at
s h o ta tRe u b e n Br i t to n l y a f t e rBu l l i n s f

i r e d t h e “ l e th a l ” s h o t s f r o m th e . 2 2 we a p o n , we
nev ertheles s fi nd P i t chford’s argum ent w i tho ut m eri t . A ft er com pari ng the fact s of this case
w ith fa c tu a lly sim ilar c a se s in w h ich th e d e a th p e n a lty h a s b e e n im p o se d , w e fin d th e d e a th
s ent ence i n t hi s cas e i s nei therexce s s i ve nordi s pr opor t i onat e. T hi s C our th as uphel d t he
s ent ence of

de ath f ormurde rc om m i t t ed i n the cour s e of a r obbery. I n B ish o

p v . S ta te , 134 135 thi s C our tf

ound: T he r ecor d s how s that , af t erG entry had bee n hi ti n the hea d w i th the hamm er f orthe f i r s tt i m e, B i s hop chas ed af t erhi m a nd br oughthi m ba ck. W hen B i s hop s aw G entr y hi tw i th the hamm erhe knew deadl y f or ce w as be i ng us ed. W hen he r an G entr y dow n and hel d G entry as he w as bei ng s truck by J es s i e, he beca m e more of

a pr i nci pal i n the cr i m e. A j ury coul d have e as i l y f ound that B ish o p k ill e d , inte n d e d to k ill , o r a t lea st c o n tem p late d th a t d e a d ly fo rc e w o u ld be us ed. T hi s cas e i s no tli ke a r obbery w her e s om eone i s ki l l ed on i m pul s e. B i s hop t ook an ac t i ve r ol e i n the ki l l i ng. 136 ¶ 1 9 5
. T h is C o u rt fu rth e r fo u n d tha t B ish o p ’s in v o lv e m e n t w a s e n o u g h to ju stify th e d e a th penal ty, even i f

the ac tual ki l l erdi d notr ece i ve i t . Si m i l ar l y, ev en accept i ng as t rue 137 Pi t chf or d’ s ver s i on of

the r obbery, he t ook an ac t i ve r ol e i n the ki l l i ng w hen he s hotR euben B ritt w ith th e .3 8 p is to l. B u lli n s’s su c c e ss fu l p lea n e g o tiatio n d o e s n o t m a k e th e d e a th penal ty i n t hi s cas e cons t i tut i onal l y ors t atut or i l y di s pr opor t i onat e.J e n k in s v . S ta te , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 1 , 1 1 8 3 -84 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ); H a n se n v. S ta te , 592 So. 138 2 d 1 1 4 , 1 5 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). 

### 71 XV I I . W HE T HE R T HE CU M UL AT I VE E F F E CT OF T HE E RR OR S OF T HE TR I AL COURT M ANDAT ES RE VE RS AL
. ¶1 9 6
. P it ch ford arg u e s th a t th e cu m u lat ive effec t o f e rrors m an d ates rev ersa l. T h is C o u rt
m ay r ever se a c on vic t i on and/ ors ent ence bas ed upon the cumul at i ve ef f ectof err or s t hat i ndepende nt l y w oul d notr equi r e revers al
. A f t era thor ough r evi ew of the r ecor d and 138 br i ef s , w e do notf

i nd the cumul at i ve ef

f ectof the i ndi vi dual err or s deni ed Pi t chf or d a fu n d a m e n tally fa ir trial, so th is iss u e h a s n o m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶197. W e af

f i r m the convi ct i on and s ent ence i n thi s cas e. ¶198. CO NVI CTI ON OF CAPI TAL M URD ER AND S ENTENCE OF DEATH BY LE THAL I NJ EC TI ON, AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, CHAN DL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. GR AVES, P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y K I T C H E N S, J. GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶1 9 9
. “[V ] o ir d ir e [oft en ] h as b ec o m e an ex erc ise in fi n d ing rac e-n eu tr al rea so n s to justi fy
r aci al l y m ot i vat ed s tr i kes
. A s J us t i ce M ar s hal l pr edi ct ed, ‘ [ m ] er el y al l ow i ng def endant s t he
o p p o rtu n ity to c h a llen g e th e ra c ially d isc rim in a to ry u se o f p e re m p to ry c h a llen g e s in i ndi vi dual cas es w i l l notend t he i l l egi t i m at e use of the per empt ory chal l enge. ’ ” How el l v. S ta te , 860 So. 2d 704, 766 ( M i s s . 2003) ( G r aves , J
. , di s s ent i ng) ( quot i ng B at s on v. Ken tucky , 4 7 6 U .S
. 7 9 , 1 0 5 , 1 0 6 S
. C t. 1 7 1 2 , 1 7 2 7 , 9 0 L
. E d
. 2 d 6 9 (1 9 8 6 ) (M a rsh a ll, J ., concurr i ng) )
. I n t he i ns t antcas e, per empt ory chal l enges w er e us ed t o excl ude A f r i can-

### 72

A m e ric a n s fr o m th e ju ry . T h e re fo re , I d isa g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s f in d in g th a t th e S tate d id notdi s cr i m i nat e on the bas i s of r ace dur i ng j ury s el ect i on. B eca us e I w oul d r ever s e the tr i al
courtpur s uantt o B at

s on , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶2 0 0
. U n d er B at

s on , a p a rty w h o o b

jec ts to a p e re m p to ry strik e m u st e sta b lish a p rim a fa c ie
c a se o f p u rp o se fu l d isc rim in a tio n a s fo llo w s: T o es t abl i s h s uch a c as e, the def endantf i r s tmusts how thathe i s a mem berof a c o g n izab le racial g rou p . . . an d that the p rose cu tor h as e x erc ised p ere m p tory chal l enges t o r emove f

r om the veni r e mem ber s of the def endant ' s r a c e . Se c ond, the def endanti s ent i t l ed t o r el y on the f act , as t o w hi ch ther e ca n be no di s put e, th a t p e re m p to ry c h a llen g e s c o n stitu te a ju ry se lec tio n p ra c tice th a t p e rm its "thos e t o di s cr i m i nat e w ho ar e of a mi nd t o di s cri m i nat e. " .
. . Fi nal l y, the de f e nd a ntmus ts ho w tha tthe s e f a c t s a nd a ny othe rr e l e va ntc i r c ums t a nc es r ai s e an i nf

er ence t hatthe pr os ecut orus ed thatpr act i ce t o exclude t he v e n ir e m e n fr o m th e p e tit ju ry o n a c c o u n t o f t h e irra c e . B at s on , 4 7 6 U .S . at 9 6 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). H o w e v e r, a s th is C o u rt h a s a c k n o w led g e d , this t es tw as s om ew hatm odi f i ed by the U
. S. Supr eme C ourti n P o w e rs v. O h io , 499 U
. S. 400, 1 1 1 S
. C t. 1 3 6 4 , 1 1 3 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 1 1 (19 9 1 ). In th a t ca se th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t P o w e rs, a w h ite, h a d sta n d in g to chal l enge the exc l us i on of bl ack j ur or s on the gr ounds thatthe equa l pr ot ect i on r i ghtof the j ur ort o s erve w as pr ot ect ed by B at s on . P ow ers , 499 U
. S. at406, 111 S. C t . 1364. E s s ent i al l y, thi s m eans thats t ep thr ee a bove becom es the p iv o tal in q u iry to d e ter m in e a p rim a f a c ie c a se , as th is C o u rt re c o g n ize d in D a v is v . S ta te , 66 0 So
. 2d 12 28 , 12 40 ( M i s s . 19 95 ) , cer t . de ni e d, 51 7 U. S. 1192, 1 16 S
. C t . 1684, 134 L
. E d. 2d 785 ( 1996)
. Speci f i cal l y, the pi vot al ques t i on i s w hetherthe opponentof the s tr i ke has m etthe bur den of s how i ng thatpr oponenthas engage d i n a patt ern of s tr i kes bas ed on r ace orgender , or i n otherw or ds “t he t ot al i ty of the r el evantf

act s gi ves r i s e t o an i nf er ence of di s cr i m i nat ory purpos e. ” B at s on , 476 U
. S. at94, 106 S. C t . 1712. R a n da ll v. S ta te , 716 So. 2d at587 ( M i s s . 1998). Pur s uantt o the thi r d s t ep, “[ t ] hi s C our thas exami ned the num berof s tr i kes on a par t i cul arcl as s , the ul t i m at e ethni c orgenderm akeup of the j ury, the natur e of

ques t i on s asked dur i ng the voi rdi r e, and the over al l demeanorof

### 73

the att orney . ” Id
. ( ci t i ng Co lem a n v. S ta te , 6 9 7 S o . 2 d 7 7 7 , 7 8 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); D a v is , 660 S o . 2 d at 1 2 6 3 (B a n k s, J., co n c u rrin g ); Ma c kv. S ta te , 6 5 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ),
cer t . deni ed , 516 U
. S. 880, 116 S. C t . 214, 133 L
. E d. 2d 146 ( 1995) )
. “A ddi t i onal l y, ‘ [ t ] he [op p o n en t of th e str ike] m ay a lso re ly o n the fa ct th at pe rem p tory ch all en g es c o n sti tute a jury
s el ect i on pr act i ce thatperm i t s thos e t o di s cr i m i nat e w ho ar e of a mi nd t o di s cr i m i nat e. ’ ” Id
. ( ci t i ng B at

s on , 4 7 6 U
. S
. at 80 , 1 0 6 S
. C t. at 17 1 4 )). ¶201. O nce the def

endanthas es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e cas e of

di s cr i m i nat i on, t he bur den
s h if ts to th e S ta te to p ro v id e a ra c e -n e u tr a l r e a s o n fo r e a c h s tr ik e . B at s on , 476 U
. S. at97. T he tr i al cour tthen makes a det erm i nat i on of w hetherthe def

endanthas es t abl i s hed p u rp o s e fu l d is c ri m in a tio n . I d. at 9 8
. T h e F ifth C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s e x p lain e d th is po rt i on of the tes tas f

oll ow s: T he “s hi f

t i ng burden” des cr i bed i n the B at s on f r amew or k i s one of p ro d u c tio n o n ly . T h e u lti m a te b u rd e n o f p e rsu a sio n a lw a y s lies w ith th e p a rty m aki ng the cl ai m of

purpos ef

ul di s cr i m i nat i on. A tthe s econd s t age of the B at s on fra m e w o rk w h e re th e p a rty a c c u se d o f d isc rim in a tio n m u st a rticu late a r ace - neutr al e x p lan a tio n fo r th e p e re m p to ry c h a llen g e s – th e iss u e is m e re ly th e fa c ial v a lid ity o f th e e x p lan a tio n . “U n les s a d isc rim in a to ry in ten t is i nher enti n the .
. . expl anat i on, the rea s on of f er ed w i l l be dee m ed r ace n e u tr a l.” U .S . v. B e n tley -S m ith , 2 F. 3d 1368, 1373 (5th C i r . 1993) ( quot i ng Hernandez v. N ew Y ork , 5 0 0 U
. S
. 3 5 2 , 36 0 , 11 1 S
. C t. 18 5 9 , 11 4 L
. E d
. 2d 39 5 , 39 6 (19 9 1 )). W ith reg ard to the thir d
s t age of the Bat s on f r amew or k, w her e the tr i al courtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe def endant has es t abl i s hed purpos ef ul di s cr i m i nat i on, the Fi f th C i r cui ts ai d: In a ty p ica l pe re m p to ry ch a llen g e in q u iry , the d e c isiv e q u e stio n w ill n o rm a lly b e w h e th e r a p ro ff

e re d ra c e - n e u tr a l e x p la n a tio n s h o u ld b e b e lie v e d
. See U nited States v. Johnson , 9 4 1 F .2 d 1 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). T h e re w ill s el dom be any e vi dence thatthe cl ai m antc an i ntr oduce – be yond a r gui ng that

### 74

the expl anat i ons ar e notbel i evabl e orpoi nt i ng outt hatsi m i l arcl ai m s can be m ade ab ou tno n-excl ud ed jur ors w ho are notm i no ri t i es. B e n tley -S m ith , 2 F. 3d at1373- 74. ¶202. T hi s C our thas hel d that , i n r evi ew i ng a B at s on cl ai m , w e w i l l no t ov errule a t r i al
courtunl es s t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t he deci s i on w as cl ear l y err oneous orcontr ary t o t he
o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 9 4 7 S o . 2 d 91 0 , 9 1 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). See al s o T h o rs o n v. S ta te , 7 2 1 S o . 2 d 5 9 0 , 5 9 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶203. T hi s C our t has s peci f i ed f i ve i ndi ci a of pr et ext f

or us e i n anal yzi ng a pr of f er ed r ace neu tral reas on forperem ptory st ri kes: ( 1) di s par at e tr eatm ent , thati s , the pr es ence o f unch al l enged j ur or s of the oppos i t e r ace w ho s har e the cha r act er i s t i c gi ven as the bas i s f orthe cha l l enge; ( 2) the f

a i l ur e t o vo i rd i r e a s t o the c ha r a c t e r i s t i c c i t e d;
. . . ( 3) t he ch ara cterist ic cit ed is un related to the fac ts of the c a se ; ( 4 ) l ac k o f reco rd supp ortforthe st at ed reason; and (5) gr ou p-based tr ai t s. L y n c h v. S ta te , 8 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 7 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶20 4. In the inst ant cas e, P i t chford obj ect ed as fol l ow s:

W e w o u ld o b

ject on the g rou n d s o f B at s on v. K entucky that itap p ea rs ther e i s a patt ern of

s tr i ki ng al m os tal l of

the avai l abl e A f

r i can- A m er i can j urors . T hey have t ender ed one A f r i can- A m er i can j ur oroutof the f i ve that have thus f

ar– f ourthathave thus f

arar i s en on the veni r e. A s w e had not ed p re v io u sly , d u e to th e p ro c e ss o f c a u se c h a llen g e s, p a rticu lar ly d e a th qual i f i cat i on chal l enges , thi s i s al r eady a di s pr opor t i onal l y w hi t e j ury forthe popul at i on of

thi s c ounty. A nd w e make a B at s on chal l enge. I tappea r s t o be a patt ern of di sproport i on at el y ch al l eng i ng A fr i can-A m eri can jur ors. ¶2 05
. The St a t e us e d f ou r of s e ve n pe r e mpt ory s tr i ke s a ga i ns t A f r i c a n- A m er i cans on t he veni r e. T hus , onl y one A f r i can- A m er i can outof

f our t een j ur or s , i ncl udi ng al t ernat es , w as
s eat ed on Pi t chf

or d’ s j ury i n G r enada C ounty. B as ed on thi s , the tr i al courtcorr ect l y f oundSinc e th e p ros ecutor of fered anexplanatio n f

or t hepe rem pto ry c ha lle ng es and

the trial 139 co urt rul ed on theultim atequ estion

of int entio na l di scrimination, th e is su e o f whe ther P itc hf ord made a prima facie showing of discrimination i s moot. Her na nd ez v . N ew Yor k , 500 U.S. 352, 359, 111 S. Ct. 1859, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395, 396 (1991) (citi ng Un ited St ate s Posta l S erv . B d. of G overn or s v. Aikens , 4 60 U. S. 71 1, 71 5, 10 3 S . C t. 1 47 8, 14 82 , 7 5 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (1 98 3))
. 

### 75 thatPi t chf

or d had es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e case forr aci al di s cr i m i nat i on and r equi r ed the S t at e t o p rovi de race-neut ral reas on s f or the st ri kes. T he S t at e t hen off ered these reasons: 139 M R
. E V A N S ( D i s tr i ctA t t orney) : Y es , s i r . S- 2 i s bl ack f emal e, j ur or n u m b e r 3 0 . S h e is th e o n e th a t w a s 1 5 m in u tes late
. S h e a ls o , a c c o rd in g to pol i ce of f i cer , pol i ce capt ai n, Car verConl ey, ha s ment al pr obl ems. T hey have had nu m erous cal l s t o h er house an d sai d she o bv i ou sl y h as m ental problem s. J ur ornum berS- 3 – T H E C O U R T : T h at w o u ld b e ra ce n eu tr al as to – as to that juro r. M R
. E V A N S: S- 3 i s a bl ack mal e, num ber 31, C hr i s t opherL amont T i l l m on. H e has a br otherthathas been c onvi ct ed of m ansl aught er . A nd cons i der i ng thatthi s i s a m ur derc as e, I don’ tw antanyone on the j ury thathas rel at i ves con vict ed o f s i m i l ar of fenses
. T H E C O U R T : W hatw as hi s br other ’ s name? M R
. EV A N S: I don’ te ven r emem berhi s br other
. H e s ai d thathe had a b roth er c o n v ict ed o f m an slau g h ter. T H E C O U R T : O n t hatj ury ques t i onnai r e? M R
. E V A N S : Y es, si r. T H E C O U R T : I f

i nd thatt o be r ace ne utr al
. A nd you can go f orw ar d. M R
. EV A N S: S- 4 i s j ur ornumber43, a bl ack f emal e, Patr i ci a A nne T i dw el l
. H e rbr othe r , D a vi d Ti dwel l , w a s c on vi c t e d i n thi s c ou r tof s e xu al batt ery. A nd herbr otheris n ow char ged i n a s hoot i ng cas e thati s a pendi ng c a s e h e r e i n Gr e n a d a . An d a l s o , a c c o r d i n g t o p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , s h e i s a k n o wn d rug u ser. T H E C O U R T : D ur i ng voi rdi r e, i n f act , I made a not at i on on m y not es a b o u t h e r b e in g k in to th is in d iv id u a l. I find th a t to b e ra c e n e u tra l. M R
. E V A N S: J ur ornum ber5 i s j ur ornum ber48 on the l i s t , a bl ack m al e, Car l os W ar d. W e have s ever al r eas ons . O ne, he ha d no opi ni on on the d e a th p e n a l ty . He h a s a two - y e a r - o l d c h i l d
. He h a s n e v e rb e e n ma rr i e d
. He h as n u m ero u s sp ee d ing v iolati o n s tha t w e a re a w are o f. T he r eas on thatI do notw anthi m a s a j ur ori s he i s t oo cl os el y r el at ed to th e d e fe n d a n t. H e is a p p ro x im a tely th e a g e o f th e d e fe n d a n t. T h e y b o th h a v e c h i l d r e n a b o u tth e s a me a g e . Th e y b o th h a v e n e v e rb e e n ma rr i e d
. I n my opi ni on he w i l l notbe abl e t o notbe thi nki ng aboutthes e i s s ues , espe ci al l y on th e se c o n d p h a se s. A n d I d o n ’t th in k h e w o u ld b e a g o o d ju ro r b e c a u se o f th a t.

### 76 T H E C O U R T : T he C our tf i nds thatt o be r ace ne utr al a s w el l
. So now w e w i l l go back a nd have the def ens e s t art i ng at37. ¶206. W hen t he j ury w as s eat ed, couns el f orPi t chf or d r enew ed the B at

s on obj ect i on and
s t at ed: M S. STEI N ER [ de f e ns e c ou ns e l ] : A ts ome p oi ntthe de f e ns e i s go i ng t o w ant t o reserve b oth i t s B at s on o b jec tio n a n d a stra ig h t fo r T e n th A m endmentr aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. T H E C O U R T : Y ou have a l r eady made i ti n the r ecor d s o I am of the opi ni on i ti s i n t he r ecor d. M S
. S T E I N E R : I don’ tw antt o l etthe pane l i ng of the j ury go by w i tho ut havi ng tho se object i on s. T H E C O U R T : I thi nk you al r eady m ade thos e, a nd they ar e cl eari n the r ecor d. Forthe r eas ons pr evi ous l y s t at ed, f i r s tthe C our tf

i nds ther e t o be no – w el l , al l the r eas ons w er e r ace neutr al as t o mem ber s thatw er e s truck by the di s tr i c ta t t orne y’ s of

f i c e . A nd s o the , the Cour tf i nd s the r e t o b e no B at

s on vi ol at i on. A nd t hen as t o the otheri s s ues , the C our thas al r eady rul ed thatbas ed on pr i orrul i ngs f

r om the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tand the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi thatj ury s el ect i on w as appr opr i at e. A s I s ay, they ar e not ed f orthe r ecor d. M S. ST E I N E R : A l l ow us t o s t at e i nt o the r ecor d t her e i s one of 12 – of f our t een j ur or s , ar e non- w hi t e, w her eas t hi s count y i s appr oxi m at el y, w hat , 40 p e rc e n t? M R
. B A U M [ def

ens e couns el ] : T he county i s 40 per centbl ack. T H E C O U R T : I don’ tknow a boutthe r aci al makeup, butI w i l l not e f or the r ecor d ther e i s one r egul arm embero f t he panel thati s bl ack, A f r i canA m er i can r ace . ¶207. O n appea l , Pi t chf or d as s ert s that t he S t at e’s race - neutr al r eas ons ar e pr et extual f or
eac h of the f ourA fr i can- A m er i can j ur or s w ho w er e s truck. Fur ther , Pi t chf or d as s ert s t hat the St at e ac cept ed w hi t e veni r e mem ber s w ho s har ed the char act er i s t i cs of the j ur or s w ho
w e re s tru c k
. Li nda R uth Lee

### 77

¶208. T he St at e s ai d that L ee w as s truck beca us e s he w as f i f t een m i nut es l at e, “has m ent al p ro b lem s,” an d p o lice h a d m a d e n u m e ro u s c a lls to h e r h o u se , a c c o rd in g to P o lic e C a p tain C arverC on l ey. H ow ever , C onl ey w as notcal l ed t o t es t i f y. Fur ther , the St at e di d not i ntr oduce a ny evi dence t o pr ove t he cl ai m s of herhavi ng “ment al pr obl ems” orof pol i ce h a v in g n u m e ro u s c a lls to h e r h o u se . T h e S tate a lso fa iled to d e fin e “ m e n tal p ro b lem s” a s it per t ai ns t o L e e ’ s a l l e ge d i na bi l i ty t o s e r ve a s a j ur or . W i th r e ga r d t o Le e be i ng f i f t een
m i nut es l at e, the r ecor d e s t abl i s hes thats ever al j ur or s w er e l at e r eturni ng f r om l unch dur i ng voi rdi r e. T he tr i al cour tinquir ed w hy L ee w as the l as tof the l at e j ur or s t o r eturn and s he in d ica ted th a t sh e h a d to w a lk to th e c o u rth o u se . D u rin g th e c h a llen g e s fo r c a u se , th e S tate tr i ed uns ucce s s f

ul l y t o gett he t r i al courtt o s tr i ke Lee f orcaus e f

orbei ng f

i f t een mi nut es l at e. I n denyi ng the St at e’ s r eques t , the tr i al courts ai d:

S h e in d ica ted – an d if a n y b o d y w a s h a v in g to w a lk fro m th e ir h o u se to the courtr oom i n thi s w eathert oday, s he i ndi cat ed – ordi nar i l y I w oul d but w h e n I a s k e d h e r s h e s a id sh e w a s h a v in g to w a lk . A n d th a t’ s – y o u k n o w , I gu e s s w e a l l a s s ume e ve r yb od y h a s go ta w a y t o r i de no w bu ts he di dn ’ t . So I f eel l i ke t hatshe expl ai ned t he r eas on w hy s he w as l at e t o the s at i s f act i on of the courtthatI do notbel i eve i tw oul d be appr opr i at e t o s tr i ke herf orcaus e. In fa ct, sh e is tryin g rea l hard to b e h ere an d fulfi ll h er c ivic d u ty as a juro r. ¶209. T her e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tthe St at e’ s pr of f er ed r ace - neutr al r eas ons f or strik in g L e e . F u rth e r, th e tria l c o u rt sp e c ifica lly fo u n d th a t L e e b e in g fifte e n m in u tes late
r eturni ng t o the courthous e i n w hatw as appar ent l y i ncl ementw eatherw as an i ns uf f i ci ent
r eas on t o s tr i ke her
. T he cha r act eri st i cs ci t ed ar e unr el at ed t o the f act s of the ca s e. T he
m aj or i ty s t at es , “[ t ] hata j ur or‘ obvi ous l y has m ent al pr obl ems’ w as cl ear l y a r ace neutr al
r eas on. ” ( M aj
. O p. at¶ 23)
. I note thatthes e al l eged “ m ent al pr obl ems” w er e not
s uf f i ci ent l y obvi ous t o compel t he tr i al courtt o s tr i ke Lee f orcaus e. T he St at e neve rbr ought

### 78

up any “ment al pr obl ems” orpol i ce cal l s pri ort o ordur i ng voi rdi r e. T he St at e di d not in d iv id u a lly v o ir d ire L e e o r a sk a n y sp e c ific q u e stio n s re late d to th e se re a so n s. T h e S tate al s o di d notdi s cl os e any of thi s i nf or m at i on obt ai ned out s i de of t he voi rdi r e pr oces s pr i or t o the B at

s on hear i ng . I n Ma c kv. S ta te , 65 0 S o . 2d 12 8 9 , 12 9 9 (M iss. 19 9 4 ), th is C o u rt i ndi cat ed thatthe pr os ecut orm ay notw i thhol d s uch i nf or m at i on. “Thati s nott o s ay, how ever , thatthe pr os ecut orm ay, w i th i m puni ty, w i thhol d i nf or m at i on conce rni ng a pr os pect i ve j ur orw hi ch i m pact s upon the j ur or ' s abi l i ty t o be f ai rand i m part i al
. ” Id . T h is C our tal s o s ai d:

T he f ai l ur e t o voirdir e us uall y com es i n t o [ s i c] pl ay w hen the pr os ecut orexpr es s es s om e s us pi ci on oruncert ai nty aboutthe true s i tuat i on i nvol vi ng the j ur or , s uch as w hen he “ bel i eves ” thatthe j ur ori s r el at ed t o a crim inal, o r ha s b ee n inv o lved in so m e a cti v it ies w h ich m igh t e n g e n d er a negat i ve att i tude t ow ar d the def endant
. T hi s f

act or i s cl os el y r el at ed t o the l ack of an evi dent i ary basi s . H er e, the fa ctt hatM i t chel l w as unem pl oyed w as reflected in the jury q u esti o n n aire. T h e p rose cu tor w as n o t acti n g o n a m ere s u s p ic io n . S till, voirdir e on thi s i s s ue m ay have r evea l ed an e xpl anat i on f or thi s s t atus w hi ch w oul d notha ve been cons i s t entw i th a s s um pt i ons r egar di ng the s t abi l i ty and comm uni ty val ues of the unempl oyed. T he f

ai l ur e t o conduct voirdir e m us tw ei gh agai ns tt he St at e i n an eva l uat i on of the bona f

i des of the pr of f er ed r eas on. Mack , 650 So. 2d at1298. ¶210. B eca us e Pi t chf

or d has m et the bur den of es t abl i s hi ng pr et ext bas ed on the i ndi ci a s et outpr evi ous l y her ei n, I w oul d f i nd thatthe tr i al j udge’ s acc ept ance of the St at e’ s r ace - neutr al
r e a s on f ors tr i ki ng Lee i s c l e a r l y e rr on e ou s . Fur t her , a s s t a t e d b y the maj or i ty, the U
. S. Supr eme C our tr ei t er at ed i n Sny de rv. Louis iana , 552 U
. S. 472, 128 S. Ct
. 1203, 170 L. E d. 2 d 1 7 5 (20 0 8 ), th at th e C o n sti tuti o n pro h ibit s str iking ev en a sin g le j u ror fo r a d iscri m inato ry

### 79

p u rp o se . T h e re fo re , P itch fo rd ’s c o n v ictio n sh o u ld b e rev e rse d an d rem a n d e d fo r a n e w trial. N evertheles s, I w i l l bri efl y d i scuss the rem ai ning j urors . C hr is t opherLam ontTi l lm on ¶211. T he St at e s ai d that T i l l m on w as s truck beca us e he s ai d on hi s j ury ques t i onnai r e that he had a br otherw ho had bee n convi ct ed of m ans l aught er . W hi l e thi s i s an ac cept abl e r ace n e u tra l re a so n , the q u e stio n n a ire a lso in d ica ted tha t T ill m o n is a n e m p lo y e d c o lleg e g ra d u a te
w h o p re v io u s ly w o rk e d fo r a c o rre c tio n a l fa c ili ty , an d w h o stro n g ly fa v o re d th e d e a th penal ty. F ur ther , t he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe St at e di d notvoi rdi r e Ti l l m on on thi s r eas on. A l s o, w hi t e veni r e m ember s w i th f ami l y mem ber s w ho ha d f el ony, al beitnonhom i ci de, convi ct i ons w er e ac cept ed by the St at e. P a tric ia A n n e T

idw e ll ¶2 12
. T he St at e s ai d t hatPat r i ci a A nn e Ti dwel l was s truc k be c a us e he rbr ot her w as convi ct ed of

s exual batt ery and w as char ged i n a s hoot i ng cas e. T he St at e al s o s ai d that T i dw el l i s a know n drug us er . W hi l e Ti dw el l ’ s ques t i onnai r e di d i ndi cat e herbr otherhad been c onv i ct ed of s exual batt ery, the St at e of f er ed no evi dence of

T i dw el l ’ s br otherbei ng char ged i n a shoot i ng cas e orof T i dw el l bei ng a know n drug us er . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat the St at e di d noti ndi vi dual l y voi rdi r e Ti dw el l or as k any s peci f i c ques t i ons r egar di ng any
o f th ese rea so n s. T h e re co rd also ind icates tha t w h it e v en ir e m em b ers w ith fam il y m em b ers
w ho had bee n convi ct ed of cr i m es w er e notchal l enged. C arl os W

ard ¶ 2 1 3
. T h e S tate s a id th a t C a rlo s W a rd w a s stru c k b e c a u se h e h a d n o o p in io n o n th e d e a th penal ty, had a tw o- year - ol d chi l d, had n ever b een m arr i ed, and had numer ous s peedi ng

### 80

v io latio n s. S p e c ifica lly , the S tate sa id th a t W a rd w a s “ to o c lo se ly re late d to th e d e fe n d a n t” beca us e of

s har ed cha r act er i s t i cs . H ow ever , the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe St at e ac cept ed
num erous w hi t e veni r e mem ber s s har i ng the cha r act er i s t i cs gi ven as the bas i s f ort he chal l enge. The r ecor d al s o i ndi cat es thatthe St at e di d noti ndi vi dual l y voi rdi r e W ar d on any of the pr of f er ed r eas ons . W i th r egar d t o hi s opini on o n t he death penal ty, W ar d di d not i ndi cat e dur i ng voi rdi r e thathe had a ny i s s ue w i th i t , butm er el y ci r cl ed no opi ni on, w hi ch
w a s th e m id d le o f fiv e c h o ice s o n th e ju ry q u e stio n n a ire T h e ju ry q u e stio n n a ire sp e c ifica lly excludes t raf

fi c viol at i on s, and the S t at e i ntr od uced no evidence o f any speed i ng viol at i on s. T her e i s al so n othi ng i n the r ecor d t o es t abl i s h thatthe St at e s oughti nf or m at i on r egar di ng tr af f i c vi ol at i ons on ot herj ur or s . Fur ther , W ar d i ndi cat ed he w as empl oyed and ha d f i ni s hed tw o year s of

col l ege a tthe t i m e he c om pl et ed the ques t i onnai r e. ¶214. A l though the r ecor d be f or e thi s C ou rtest abli shes t hat the tr i al cou rt ’s deci s i on
acc ept i ng the St at e’ s r ace - neutr al r eas ons f orexcl ud i ng A fr i can-A m eri cans fr om the jury w as cl ear l y err oneous , the maj or i ty s t at es thati t“cannotsay the tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on”
w i th r egar d t o eac h j ur or . ( M aj
. O p. at¶¶ 21, 23, 25, 27). R atherthan addr es s the mer i t s of thi s i s s ue, the maj or i ty di s cus s es m oota s pect s of the i s s ue, a s s t at ed pr evi ous l y he r ei n, and th e n c ites v a rio u s c a se s fo r th e e rro n e o u s p ro p o sitio n th a t P itch fo rd so m e h o w w a iv e d h is B at s on o b je c tio n b y n o t r e b u ttin g th e S ta te ’s p ro ff e re d ra c e -n e u tr a l r e a s o n s . ¶ 2 1 5
. T h e m a

jo rity fin d s th a t “[a ]l th o u g h the ap p e llan t d e v o ted a c o n sid e ra b le p o rtio n o f h is bri ef and o ral argum ent bef ore this C ou rtt o h i s pret ext argu m en t , he d i d n ot pr esentt hese
a rg u m e n ts to th e trial c o u rt d u rin g th e v o ir d ire p ro c e ss o r d u rin g p o st-tria l m o tio n s.” (M a j. O p. at¶ 28)
. Fur ther , the maj or i ty f i nds s i nce the “appel l ant provided the tr i al courtno

### 81

re b u ttal to th e s tate ’s ra c e -n e u tra l re a so n s” th a t “ [w ]e w ill n o t n o w fa u lt th e trial ju d g e w ith f ai l i ng t o di s cern w hetherthe s t at e’ s r ace - neutr al r easons w er e over come by r ebutt al evi dence and ar gum entneverpre s ent ed. ” (M aj
. O p. at¶ 30)
. Fi nal l y, the maj or i ty di s m i s s es Pi t chf or d’ s ar gum entr egar di ng the t ot al i ty of the f act s as an “a t t empt t o pr es enthi s pr et ext
ar gum enti n anotherpacka ge” a nd fi nds thatPi t chf or d “f ai l ed t o pr ovi de any a r gum ent
conce rni ng pr et extdur i ng the B at s on heari ng . ” I di sagree f or several reas on s. ¶216. B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onary def i nes pr et ext as : “O s t ens i bl e r eas on or m ot i ve as s i gned or
a s s u m e d a s a c o lo r o r c o v e r f o r t h e re a l r e a s o n o r m o tiv e ; f a ls e a p p e a ra n c e , p re te n s e . . . .” B lack’s Law D i ct i onar y 1 1 8 7 (6 th e d . 1 9 9 0 ). B a se d o n th e v e ry d e fin iti o n o f p re tex t, P i t chford m ade a p ret ext ar gu m ent by virtue o f hi s B at s on o b jecti o n . W h en P it ch ford att em pted t o r eas s erthi s obj ect i on, the tr i al courtcorr ect l y f ound thatthe obj ect i on w as al r eady on the r ecor d. ¶ 2 1 7
. T o re itera te, “ [o ]nc e th e d e fe n d a n t m a k e s a p rim a fa c ie sh o w in g , th e b u rd e n sh ifts to the St at e t o come f

orw ar d w i th a ne utr al e xpl anat i on f orc hal l engi ng bl ack j ur or s . ” B at s on , 476 U
. S. at97. “The pros ecut ort her ef or e m us tar t i cul at e a neutr al expl anat i on r el at ed t o the part i cul arcase t o be t ri ed. T he tr i al courtthen w i l l have the duty t o det erm i ne i f t he def endanthas es t abl i s hed purpos ef ul di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id
. at98. I n otherw or ds , once P itch fo rd m a d e a p rim a fa c ie sh o w in g , the b u rd e n sh ifted to th e S tate to re b u t th e p rim a fa c ie
s h o w in g w ith a ra c e -n e u tr a l e x p la n a tio n a s to e a c h ju ro r. Id
. at97- 98. Pi t chf or d m ay r ebut the S tat e’s e v iden ce , b u t th ere is no req u ir em en t un d er B at s on thatPi t chf

or d m ustthen r ebut the r e bu t t a l b e f

or e the tr i a l c ou r t . Pur s uantt o B at s on , once the St at e of

f er ed r ace - neutr al
r eas ons t o r ebutthe pr i m a f aci e s how i ng, the tr i al courtthen made a det erm i nat i on t hat

### 82

Pi t chf or d had notes t abl i s hed purpos ef ul di s cr i m i nat i on. T hi s C our ti s revi ew i ng the tr i al
court ’ s de ci s i on t o de t erm i ne w hetheri ti s c l ear l y e rr oneous orcontr ary t o the overw hel m i ng
w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 9 4 7 S o . 2 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶218. I do not di s put e the l anguage i n the cas es ci t ed by the m aj or i ty r egar di ng the bas i s f or the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on. H ow ever, the s ugges t i on thatthi s C our tcannotr evi ew the tr i al
c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n u n d e rth e t o t a l i ty o f th e r e l e v a n tf

a c t s i s c o n tr a ry t o th e a p p l i c a b l e l a w. An anal ys i s of

the ca s es ci t ed by the m aj or i ty f orthe w ai verpr opos i t i on i s i l l um i nat i ng. T he
m aj ori ty q uo t es Ma n n in gv. S ta te , 73 5 S o . 2d 32 3 , 33 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ), for the foll o w ing : “It i s i ncumbentupon a def endantcl ai m i ng thatpr of f er ed r easons are pr et extual t o r ai s e the
ar gum entbef

or e the tr i al court . T he f ai l ur e t o do so cons t i tut es w ai ver . ” (M aj
. O p. at¶ 29
n . 1 6 ). Manningci t es Ma c kv. S ta te , 650 So. 2d 1289, 1297 ( M i s s . 1994) , w hi ch ci t es W h itse y v . S ta te , 79 6 S
. W
. 2 d 70 7 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 19 8 9 ), for th is p rop o sit ion
. H o w ev er, W hit s ey , w h ic h is n o t b in d in g a u th o ri ty o n th is C o u rt , m a k e s n o s u c h fi n d in g . ¶219. T he tr i al and hea r i ng on t he mot i on f ornew tr i al i n W

hit s ey o ccurr ed pri ort o the Bat s on d e c isi o n . W

hit s ey , 796 S. W
. 2d at710. Fol l ow i ng the B at s on deci s i on, the Texas Four t eenth Courtof

A ppeal s r emanded f

ora Bat s on hear i ng. T he tr i al courtf ound thatthe def endantdi d notr ebutthe St at e’ s expl anat i ons , di d notpr ove by a pr eponder ance of evi dence tha tthe St at e had e ngaged i n purpos ef ul di s cr i m i nat i on, and w as notdeni ed the
e q u a l p ro te c tio n o f th e la w b y th e p ro s e c u to r’ s u s e o f h is p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s . Id
. at712. T h e F o u rt e e n th C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ff ir m e d
. Id
. O n ap p e a l, th e C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls of T exas r ever s ed, f

i ndi ng t hat t he def

endanthad es t abl i s hed thatthe pr os ecut orhad

### 83

exer ci s ed per empt ory chal l enges base d sol el y on ra ce a nd thatthe def endanthad bee n deni ed d u e p ro c e s s in th e ju ry s e le c tio n p ro c e s s . W hit s ey , 796 S. W
. 2d at716. ¶22 0. In the inst ant cas e, the m aj ori ty als o cit es W o o dw a rdv . S ta te , 72 6 S o. 2d 524, 533 ( M i s s . 1997) , f

orthe f ol l ow i ng: “I n the abs ence of an ac tual pr of

f erof evi dence b y t he d e fe n d a n t to re b u t th e S ta te ’s n e u tr a l e x p la n a tio n s , th is C o u rt m a y n o t re v e rs e o n th is p o in t.” (S e e M a j. O p . a t ¶ 2 9 n . 1 6 ). W oo dw ard i s quot i ng S u dd u th v . S ta te , 5 62 So. 2d 67, 71 (M i ss. 1 99 0), w hich ci t es D a v is v . S ta te , 551 So. 2d 165, 172 ( M i s s . 1989) , f orthi s hol di ng. H o w e v e r, D a v is i s r el yi ng on t he i nappl i cabl e, pr e- B at s on ca ses o f J

o n e s v. S ta te , 306 So. 2d 57, 58 ( M i s s . 1975) , and P e n n in g to n v. S ta te , 4 3 7 S o . 2 d 3 7 , 3 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 ). B o th Jones and P ennington i nv ol ve d i s s ues r egar di ng a tr i al court ’ s r ef us al t o perm i tthe appe l l ant to m a k e a n o ff

e r o f p ro o f t o p re s e rv e te s tim o n y . Jones , 3 0 6 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 ; P ennington , 437 S o . 2 d a t 3 9
. W

oo dw ard al so ci t es B u sh v. S ta te , 585 So. 2d 1262, 1268 ( M i s s . 1991) , w hi ch
s a y s th e d e fe n d a n t “ is a llo w e d to re b u t th e re a s o n s ” o ff e re d b y th e S ta te . B u sh , 585 So. 2d at1268. ¶221. Pi t chf

or d pr es erved the i s s ue f orappea l by m aki ng a Bat s on o b jecti o n . T h e tri al co u rt pr oper l y f

ound thathe had e s t abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e cas e and r equi r ed t he St at e t o pr ovi de
r ace - neutr al r eas ons . T he tr i al courtthen made i t s de t erm i nat i on, a nd Pi t chf or d appea l s t hat d e ter m in a tio n . P itch fo rd is n o t a ttem p tin g to p re se n t an iss u e th a t w a s n o t first p re se n ted to the tr i al court . T he m aj or i ty ci t es no author i ty t o est abl i s h t hatP i t chf or d s houl d be pr ecl uded fro m re ly in g o n e v id e n c e c o n tain e d in th e rec o rd an d p re se n ted to th e trial c o u rt d u rin g v o ir di r e, as oppos ed t o extr aneous evi dence
. T her ef or e, Pi t chf

or d has notw ai ved thi s i s s ue.

### 84

¶2 2 2
. F u rth er, an issu e co n ce rnin g a d efe n d an t’ s righ t t o a fa irtr ial an d a p rosp ec ti v e juro r’s ri g h t no t t o b e ex clud ed o n ac co u n t of race ca n n o t be ig n o red p u rsua n t t o a p roc ed u ral ba r. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed the s i gni f i canc e of thi s i s s ue. I n P ow ers
v. O h io , 499 U
. S. 400, 111 S. C t . 1364, 113 L
. E d. 2d 411 ( 1991) , the C our ts ai d: W e hol d thatthe Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e pr ohi bi t s a pr os ecut orf r om us i ng the St at e' s per empt ory chal l enges t o excl ude otherw i s e qual i f i ed and unbias ed per s ons f

r om t he pet i tjury s ol el y by r eas on of thei rr ace , a pr act i ce that f or ecl os es a s i gni f

i cantoppor tuni ty t o part i ci pat e i n ci vic l i fe
. A n i ndi vi dual j ur ordoes nothave a r i ghtt o si ton any par t i cul arpet i tj ury, buthe ors he does pos s es s the r i ghtnott o be exc l uded f r om one on ac countof

r ace . Id
. at409. T he C our tf ur thers ai d: “The j ury act s as a vi t al chec k agai nstthe w r ongf ul
e x e rc is e o f p o w e r b y th e S ta te a n d its p ro s e c u to rs . B at s on , 4 76 U
. S
. at86, 106 S. C t . , at 1717. T he i ntrus i on of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i nt o the j ury s el ect i on pr oces s damages bot h the fa ctand the per cept i on of thi s guar ant ee. ” I

d . a t4 11
. “ Bot h the e xc l ud e d j ur orand t he
cr i m i nal def

endanthave a comm on i nt er es ti n el i m i nat i ng raci al d i s cr i m i nat i on f r om t he
courtr oom . ” Id
. at413. Th e s t a tu t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n o n d i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n th e s e l e c t i o n o f j u r o r s , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 243, enac t ed pur s uantt o the F ou rt eenth A m endment ' s E nabl i ng C l aus e, m akes r ace neutr al i ty i n j ury s el ect i on a vi s i bl e, a nd i nevi t abl e, meas ur e of the j udi ci al s ys t em' s ow n comm i t m entt o the comm ands of the C ons t i tut i on. T he court s ar e underan af f i r m at i ve duty t o enf

or ce the s tr ong s t at ut ory and cons t i tut i onal pol i ci es embodi ed i n thatpr ohi bi t i on. Id
. at416. ¶ 2 2 3
. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d h e re in , I w o u ld fin d th a t th e tria l c o u rt’s d e c isio n w a s c lea rly
err oneous . B eca us e I w oul d r ever s e the tr i al courtpur s uantt o B at s on , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. KI TC HENS , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.

### i A P P E N D IX DE AT H CAS ES AF F I RM ED BY THI S COURT G o ff v . S ta te , 1 4 S o . 3 d 6 2 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). W ilso n v. S ta te , 2 1 S o . 3 d 5 7 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 9 8 9 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). L o de n v. S ta te, 9 7 1 S o . 2 d 5 4 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). K ing v. State, 9 6 0 S o . 2 d 4 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). B e n n e tt v . S ta te, 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 3 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). H a v a r d v. S ta te, 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 7 7 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). Spi cerv. State, 9 2 1 S o . 2 d 2 9 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). Ho d g e s v. S ta te, 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 7 3 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). W a lk e rv. S ta te, 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 9 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). L e v. S ta te, 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 9 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). B r ow n v. State, 8 9 0 S o . 2 d 9 0 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). P o w e rs v. S ta te 883 So. 2d 20 ( M i s s . 2004) B r anch v. State, 8 8 2 S o . 2 d 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). S c o tt v . S ta te, 8 7 8 S o . 2 d 9 3 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). L ynch v. State, 8 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). D ycus v. State, 8 7 5 S o . 2 d 1 4 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). B y r o m v. S ta te, 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). How el l v. State, 8 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). How ar d v. State, 8 5 3 S o . 2 d 7 8 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ).

### ii

W al kerv. State, 815 So. 2d 1209 ( M i s s . 2002)
. *f ol l ow i ng r emand. B ish o p v. S ta te , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d 9 3 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). S te v e n s v. S ta te, 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). G r ays on v. State, 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 2 4 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). K nox v. State, 8 0 5 S o . 2 d 5 2 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). Sim m ons v. State, 8 0 5 S o . 2 d 4 5 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). B er r y v. State, 8 0 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). S n o w v. S ta te , 8 0 0 S o . 2 d 4 7 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). Mitchel l v. State, 7 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 9 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). P uckett v. State, 788 So. 2d 752 ( M i s s . 2001)
. * f ol l ow i ng r emand. G oodin v. State, 7 8 7 S o . 2 d 6 3 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). J o r da n v. S ta te, 786 S o . 2 d 9 8 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). Manning v. State, 765 So. 2d 516 ( M i s s . 2000)
. *f ol l ow i ng r emand. E s kr idge v. State, 7 6 5 S o . 2 d 5 0 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). McG il ber r y v. State, 741 So. 2d 894 ( M i s s . 1999) . P u c k e tt v . S ta te, 7 3 7 S o . 2 d 3 2 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). * rem an d ed for Bat s on hear i ng. Ma n n in gv. S ta te, 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 3 2 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). * rem an d ed for Bat s on hear i ng. Hughes v. State, 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 2 3 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). Tu r n e rv. S ta te, 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 9 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). Sm ith v. S ta te, 7 2 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). B urns v. State, 7 2 9 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). J o r da n v. S ta te, 7 2 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ).

### iii

G r ay v. State, 7 2 8 S o . 2 d 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). Manning v. State, 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). W oodw ar d v. State, 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 5 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). B e ll v . S ta te, 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). E v a n s v. S ta te, 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 6 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). B re w e r v . S ta te , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). Cr a w fo r d v. S ta te, 7 1 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). D os s v. State, 7 0 9 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). U n de r w o o d

v. S ta te, 7 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). Hol land v. State, 7 0 5 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). W e lls v. S ta te , 6 9 8 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). W ilcherv. State, 6 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). W iley v. State, 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 9 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). B ro w n v. S ta te , 6 9 0 S o . 2 d 2 7 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). S im o n v. S ta te , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d 7 9 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). J a c kso n v. S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). W il liam s v. State, 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). D avis v. State, 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 6 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). T a y lo r v . S ta te , 6 8 2 S o . 2 d
. 3 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). B ro w n v. S ta te , 6 8 2 S o . 2 d 3 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). B lu e v. S ta te , 6 7 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). Ho lly v . S ta te , 6 7 1 S o . 2 d 3 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ).

### iv

W a lk e r v . S ta te , 6 7 1 S o . 2 d 5 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). R u ss e ll v. S ta te , 6 7 0 S o . 2 d 8 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). B a llen g e r v . S ta te , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). D a v is v . S ta te , 6 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). Ca rrv. S ta te , 6 5 5 S o . 2 d 8 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). Ma c kv. S ta te , 6 5 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). Ch a se v. S ta te , 6 4 5 S o . 2 d 8 2 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). Fo ste r v . S ta te , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). Co n n e r v . S ta te , 6 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 ). H a n se n v. S ta te , 5 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ).
* S h e ll v. S ta te , 5 5 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ), Shell v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 498 U
. S. 1 ( 1990) re v e rs in g , in p a rt , a n d re m a n d in g , S h e ll v. S ta te , 595 So. 2d 1323 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f ornew s ent enci ng hear i ng. D a v is v . S ta te , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 6 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). Min n ick v. S ta te , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ).

*P in k n e y v. S ta te , 5 3 8 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ), P inkney v. Mis s is s i ppi , 49 4 U. S. 1075 ( 1990) vaca t i ng and r emandi ng P in k n e y v. S ta te , 602 So. 2d 1 17 7 (M i ss. 1992) r emandi ng f

ornew s ent enci ng hear i ng.
* Clem o n s v . S ta te , 5 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ), Clem ons v. Mis s is s i ppi , 49 4 U. S. 7 3 8 (1 9 9 0 ) v a c a tin g a n d re m a n d in g , Clem o n s v. S ta te , 593 So. 2d 1004 ( M i s s . 1992) re m a n d in g fo r n e w s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . W o o dw a rdv. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). N ix o n v. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). Co le v . S ta te , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d 3 6 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). L o c k e tt v. S ta te , 5 1 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ).

### v

L o c k e tt v. S ta te , 5 1 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). Fa rag a v. S ta te , 5 1 4 S o . 2 d 2 9 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ).

*J o n e s v . S ta te , 517 So. 2d 1295 ( M i s s . 1987) , Jon es v. Mis s is s i ppi , 487 U
. S. 1230 (1 9 8 8 ) v a c a tin g a n d re m a n d in g , J o n e s v . S ta te , 602 So. 2d 1170 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f or new s ent enci ng hear i ng. W iley v. S ta te , 4 8 4 S o . 2 d 3 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). J o h n so n v. S ta te , 4 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 9 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). G ra y v. S ta te , 4 7 2 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). Ca b e llo v. S ta te , 4 7 1 S o . 2 d 3 3 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). J o rda n v. S ta te , 4 6 4 S o . 2 d 4 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). W ilch e r v . S ta te , 4 5 5 S o . 2 d 7 2 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). B ill io t v. S ta te , 4 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). S trin g e r v . S ta te , 4 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 6 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). D u fo u r v . S ta te , 4 5 3 S o . 2 d 3 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). N e a l v. S ta te , 4 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). B o o k e r v . S ta te , 4 4 9 S o . 2 d 2 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). W ilch e r v . S ta te , 4 4 8 S o . 2 d 9 2 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). Ca ldw e ll v. S ta te , 4 4 3 S o . 2 d 8 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). Ir v in gv. S ta te , 4 4 1 S o . 2 d 8 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). T o k m a n v. S ta te , 4 3 5 S o . 2 d 6 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). L e a th e rw o o d

v. S ta te , 4 3 5 S o . 2 d 6 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). H ill v. S ta te , 4 3 2 S o . 2 d 4 2 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). P ru e tt v. S ta te , 4 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ).

### vi

G ill ia rdv. S ta te , 4 2 8 S o . 2 d 5 7 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). E v a n s v . S ta te , 4 2 2 S o . 2 d 7 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). K in gv. S ta te , 4 2 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). W h e a t v. S ta te , 4 2 0 S o . 2 d 2 2 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). Sm ith v. S ta te , 4 1 9 S o . 2 d 5 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). J o h n so n v. S ta te , 4 1 6 S o . 2 d 3 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). E dw a rds v . S ta te , 4 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). B u llo c kv. S ta te , 3 9 1 S o . 2 d 6 0 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ). R e ddix v. S ta te , 3 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ). J o n e s v . S ta te , 3 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ). C u lb e rs o n v. S ta te , 3 7 9 S o . 2 d 4 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ). G ra y v. S ta te , 3 7 5 S o . 2 d 9 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ). J o rda n v. S ta te , 3 6 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ). V o y les v. S ta te , 3 6 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ). Ir v in gv. S ta te , 3 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 0 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ). W a sh in g to n v. S ta te , 3 6 1 S o . 2 d 6 l ( M iss. 1 9 7 8 ). B e ll v. S ta te , 3 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ).
* C a se w a s o rig in a lly a ffirm e d in th is C o u rt b u t o n re m a n d fr o m U . S . S u p re m e C o u rt, cas e w as r emanded by t hi s C our tf ora new s ent enci ng hear i ng.

### vii D EA TH C A SES R EV ER SED A S TO G U I LT PH A SE

A N D SEN TE N C E P H A SE R o s s v. S ta te, 9 5 4 S o . 2 d 9 6 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). Flo w e rs v. S ta te, 9 4 7 S o . 2 d 9 1 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). Flow ers v. State, 8 4 2 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). R a n da ll v . S ta te, 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 8 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). Flow ers v. State, 7 7 3 S o . 2 d 3 0 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). E dw ar ds v. State, 7 3 7 S o . 2 d 2 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). Sm ith v. State, 7 3 3 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). P or terv. State, 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 8 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). K ol ber g v. State, 7 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). S n e ls o n v. S ta te, 7 0 4 S o . 2 d 4 5 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). F u silierv. S ta te , 7 0 2 S o . 2 d 3 8 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). How ar d v. State, 7 0 1 S o . 2 d 2 7 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). L es terv. State, 6 9 2 S o . 2 d 7 5 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). Hu n terv. S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 6 2 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). L a n ierv. S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 9 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). G iles v. S ta te , 6 5 0 S o . 2 d 8 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). D u p la n tis v. S ta te , 6 4 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). H a rr iso n v. S ta te , 6 3 5 S o . 2 d 8 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). B u tlerv. S ta te , 6 0 8 S o . 2 d 3 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). J e n k in s v . S ta te , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ).

### viii

A b ra m v. S ta te , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). B a lfo u r v . S ta te , 5 9 8 S o . 2 d 7 3 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). G riffin v. S ta te , 5 5 7 S o . 2 d 5 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). B e v ill v. S ta te , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 6 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). W e st v . S ta te , 5 5 3 S o . 2 d 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). L e a th e rw o o d

v. S ta te , 5 4 8 S o . 2 d 3 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). Me a se v. S ta te , 5 3 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). Ho u sto n v. S ta te , 5 3 1 S o . 2 d 5 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). W e st v . S ta te , 5 1 9 S o . 2 d 4 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). D a v is v . S ta te , 5 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 l ( M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). W ill ia m so n v. S ta te , 5 1 2 S o . 2 d 8 6 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). Fo ste r v . S ta te , 5 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). Sm ith v. S ta te , 4 9 9 S o . 2 d 7 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). W e st v . S ta te , 4 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). Fish e r v . S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). J o h n so n v. S ta te , 4 7 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). F u se lierv. S ta te , 4 6 8 S o . 2 d 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). W e st v . S ta te , 4 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). J o n e s v . S ta te , 4 6 1 S o . 2 d 6 8 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). Mo ffe tt v. S ta te , 4 5 6 S o . 2 d 7 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). L a n ierv. S ta te , 4 5 0 S o . 2 d 6 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). L a n e y v. S ta te , 4 2 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ).

### ix DEATH CASES REVERSED AS T O PUNI S HM ENT AND R EM AND ED F OR RE S EN TE NCI NG TO L I F E I M P RI S ONM EN T
R e ddix v. S ta te , 5 4 7 S o . 2 d 7 9 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). W h e e lerv. S ta te , 5 3 6 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). W h ite v . S ta te , 5 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). B u llo c kv. S ta te , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d 7 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). E dw a rds v . S ta te , 4 4 1 S o . 2 d 8 4 (M iss. l98 3 ). D y c u s v . S ta te , 4 4 0 S o . 2 d 2 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). Co lem a n v. S ta te , 3 7 8 S o . 2 d 6 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ).

### x DEATH CASES REVERSED AS TO P UNI S HM EN T A ND RE M ANDE D F OR A NE W TR I AL

ON S ENTENCI NG PHASE ON LY
R u b e n s te in v. S ta te, 9 4 1 S o . 2 d 7 3 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). K in gv. S ta te, 7 8 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). W a lk e rv. S ta te, 7 4 0 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). W a tts v. S ta te, 7 3 3 S o . 2 d 2 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). W e s t v . S ta te, 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 8 7 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). Sm ith v. S ta te , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d 2 8 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). B er r y v. State, 7 0 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). B o o k e r v . S ta te , 6 9 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). T a y lo r v . S ta te , 6 7 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ).

*S h e ll v. S ta te , 5 5 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ), Shell v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 498 U
. S. 1 ( 1990) r ever s i ng, i n part , and r emandi ng, Sh e ll v. S ta te 595 So. 2d 1323 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f or new s ent enci ng hear i ng.
* P in k n e y v. S ta te , 5 3 8 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ), P inkney v. Miss iss ip p i, 49 4 U
. S. 1 0 7 5 (1 9 9 0 ) v a c a ti n g a n d r e m a n d in g , P in k n e y v. S ta te , 602 So. 2d 1177 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f

ornew s ent enci ng hear i ng.
* Clem o n s v . S ta te , 5 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ), Clem ons v. Mis s is s i ppi , 4 94 U
. S. 7 3 8 (1 9 9 0 ) v a c a tin g a n d re m a n d in g , Clem o n s v. S ta te , 593 So. 2d 1004 ( M i s s . 1992) re m a n d in g fo r n e w s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g .
*J o n e s v . S ta te , 5 1 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ), Jones v. Mis s is s i ppi , 487 U
. S. 1230 (1 9 8 8 ) v a c a tin g a n d re m a n d in g , J o n e s v . S ta te , 602 S o. 2d 1170 (M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f or new s ent enci ng hear i ng. R u ss e ll v. S ta te , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d 8 4 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). W ill ie v . S ta te , 5 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 6 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ).

### xi

L a dn e r v . S ta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). Ma c k b e e v. S ta te , 5 7 5 S o . 2 d 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). B e rr y v. S ta te , 5 7 5 S o . 2 d 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 5 7 3 S o . 2 d 6 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). State v. T

okm an , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). J o h n so n v. S ta te , 5 4 7 S o . 2 d 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). W il lia m s v. S tate , 5 4 4 S o . 2 d 7 8 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ); s ent ence af f ' d 684 So. 2d 1179 (19 9 6 ). L a n ierv. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 7 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). S trin g e r v . S ta te , 5 0 0 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). P in k to n v. S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 3 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). M h o o n v. S ta te , 4 6 4 S o . 2 d 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). Ca n n a da y v. S ta te , 4 5 5 S o . 2 d 7 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). W iley v. S ta te , 4 4 9 S o . 2 d 7 5 6 ( M is s . 1 9 8 4 ); re s e n te n c in g a ff ir m e d , W

iley v. S ta te , 4 8 4 S o . 2 d 3 3 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 6 ), cer t . deni ed W iley v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 47 9 U
. S . 1 0 3 6 (1 9 8 8 ); re s e n te n c in g o rd e re d , W iley v. S ta te , 635 So. 2d 802 (M i s s . 1993) f ol l ow i ng w r i tof

habea s corpus i s s ued pur s uantt o W iley v. P u c k e tt , 9 6 9 S o . 2 d 8 6 , 1 0 5 -10 6 (5 C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ); th re s e n te n c in g a ff

ir m e d , W iley v. S ta te , 9 5 -D P -00 1 4 9 , F eb rua ry 1 3 , 1 9 9 7 (reh ea ri n g p en d ing ). W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 4 4 5 S o . 2 d 7 9 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ). * C a se w a s o rig in a lly a ffirm e d in th is C our tbuton r emand f

r om U
. S
. Supr eme C our t , cas e w as r emanded by thi s C our tf ora new s ent enci ng hear i ng.