Document: 498 U.S. 411 111 S.Ct. 850 112 L.Ed.2d 935 James A. FORD, Petitioner,v.GEORGIA. No. 87-6796. Argued Nov. 6, 1990. Decided Feb. 19, 1991. Syllabus Petitioner Ford, a black man charged with, inter alia, the murder of white woman, filed pretrial "Motion to Restrict Racial Use Peremptory Challenges," alleging that county prosecutor had "over long period time" excluded persons from juries where issues be tried involved members opposite race. In opposing motion, prosecution referred Swain v. Alabama, 380 202, 85 824, 13 759, in which this Court recognized purposeful exclusion defendant's race his petit jury would work denial equal protection under Fourteenth Amendment Federal Constitution, but held defendant have prove pattern racial discrimination prior cases as well own prevail. The trial judge denied declaring "numerous or several" he seen strike prospective jurors leave trials defendants. During selection, exercised 9 its 10 peremptory challenges jurors, leaving 1 venire member on jury. After convicted Ford and was sentenced death, moved for new trial, claiming, among other things, Sixth right an impartial violated by prosecutor's racially based exercise challenges. motion denied, Supreme Georgia affirmed conviction. While Ford's first petition certiorari pending Court, decided Batson Kentucky, 476 79, 106 1712, 90 69, dropped requirement proof holding it possible make out prima facie violation entirely reference prosecution's use case. This ultimately vacated conviction remanded light Griffith 479 314, 107 708, 93 649, Batson' § evidentiary standard apply retroactively such present. On remand, State concluded before raised claim adversely him appeal could not reviewed again. court then suggested never at sua sponte any might untimely rule stated Sparks, 257 Ga. 97, 98, 355 S.E.2d 658, 659, which, interpreted court, requires contemporaneous objection made between jurors' selection administration their oaths. Although Sparks after regarded "valid state procedural bar" federal review Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 53 594. Held: is adequate independent ground bar judicial claim. Pp. 418-425. (a) erred concluding failed present with cognizable did mention Equal Protection Clause, cited rather than Fourteenth, motion's excluding constitutes assertion theory articulated Batson's antecedent, Swain. That courts, fact, adopted interpretation demonstrated citation judge's clear implication ruling systematic blacks juries, Court's explicit statement remand Because change nature Swain, merely quantum necessary substantiate particular claim, follows necessarily states subject more lenient burden proof. 418-420. (b) can consideration raised. sensible one, imposition here nevertheless standards assessing adequacy bars entertainment constitutional claims. These include requirement, 466 341, 348-351, 104 1830, 1835-1837, 80 346, only practice "firmly established regularly followed" time applied may interposed prevent subsequent To oaths unannounced therefore inadequate serve James. Indeed, not, terms, here, since decision declared "hereafter." 421-425. 661, 362 764 (1987), reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., petitioner. Paula K. Smith, respondent. Justice SOUTER alleges impermissible criterion exclude him. petitioner's procedurally barred law, we are now called upon State's issue We reverse. 2 * September 1984, grand Coweta County, Georgia, indicted petitioner man, kidnaping, rape, woman.1 notified intent seek death penalty identified statutory aggravating circumstances try prove. 3 Before Challenges,"2 prosecu torfor County "where race." "anticipated" continue case because different races accused victim. requested order forbidding "its biased manner serving Jury." App. 3-4. 4 At hearing counsel said experience been, "and aware[,] district attorney assistant attorneys history when you who black, using per-emptory [sic] excuse potential also black." Petitioner's asked discourage further resort alleged requiring "the attorney, if does challengesto justify record reason excusing them." Any failure offer justification record, argued, "would evidence fact [his challenges] discriminatory manner." 10. 5 opposed denying prosecutors previous challenged impermissibly. "[I]n practically every county," observed, "there always all rare county." He directed attention 759 (1965), argued "it unreasonable require either side challenges." 10-11. 6 responded occasions "I've there are, been defendants attorney's office has struck perspective (sic) left . I done can't sit document them documented them, it's one occasion." "taking [observation] into things restrict Id., 11-12. 7 began days later. day transcribed, undisputed seated A alternate juror petitioner.3 8 second both respondent opening statements, presented eight witnesses noon recess. start afternoon session, conference chambers discuss, about strikes being jury."4 noted used person jury, observed members. concurred: "That's what happened process. just think needs put made. Of course, denied. ." whether needed showing reasons answered asking any, none 15-16. counts "right guaranteed United States Constitution basis." 7-8. appeal, point "that remove comprised fair cross-section community." thereby concept "fair community," see, e.g., Taylor Louisiana, 419 522, 526-533, 95 692, 695-699, 42 690 (1975), found " 'systematic service, thus alluded establishing described supra. State, 255 81, 83, 335 567, 572 (1985) (quoting Moore 254 525, 529, 330 717, 721 (1985)). no error 11 January 22, 1986. us, 69 (1986), criminal soon Allen Hardy, 478 255, 2878, 92 199 collateral convictions reached finality announced, subsequently favor standard's retroactive application direct yet final decided. 328, 716, 649 (1987). granted Griffith. 1075, 1268, 94 129 12 sponte, without briefing arguments parties, barred. "decided [and] cannot proceeding." Ga., 663, S.E.2d, 766. "never trial," 662, 765 (emphasis omitted), went consider during treated timely. announced 659 must "be selected sworn." Reading "after commenced," objection, result valid rule. 663-664, dissenting took court's conclusion Batson-type claim," 1984. 664, 767. decide procedure laid down 495 903, 110 1921, 109 285 (1990). II 14 threshold and, so, rested inviolation Clause Amendment. having although certainly do clarity appropriate citations promoted. later Amendment, Fourteenth. 15 allege, however, engaged time," effect trial. allegation reasonably intended raise (1965). occurs uses purpose id., 209, S.Ct., 830; supra U.S., 90, 1719; rigorous proving violation, "permissible insulate inquiry removal Negroes assumption acting acceptable considerations related trying. 223, 837. overcome, required case, prosecutor, "in whatever circumstances, crime whoever victim [, was] responsible ha[d] qualified commissioners survived cause, ever juries." 223-224, 837-838. 16 Our was, courts. himself motion; clearly implicated juries; explicitly merits lost appeal. 765-766. 17 indeed, concedes properly Tr. Oral Arg. 40, proceeding argue insufficient Batson, assumes distinction holdings those two exist. Both protection. prevail noted, indicated show own. instances "not proper predicate attacking they were [his] case." 226, 839. discrimination, 92-98, 1720-1724. 18 law circumstantial well. Thus, determination Batson.5 B 19 face question If focus claim's timeliness resolved simplicity syllogism. Under Georgia's precedent, will "was directly below distinctly passed judge." Atlanta Columbia Pictures Corp., 218 714, 719, 130 490, 494 (1963) added). merits, opinion, presupposes timeliness. Bat- son1039850;0096;1986122459;RP;;; 20 nonetheless, contrary "hereafter, should 659. language sets too late, so set premature. makes obvious understood chosen. "no composition selected," 766, commenced." assume these observations refinement reflected better reading originally written. event, citing our 594 (1977), apparently deciding claim.6 21 oaths, grounds claims national Constitution. reveals inadequacy foreclose 22 appropriateness general looking local rules governing is, clear. itself, example, imposed declined "to formulate procedures followed timely challenges," 99-100, 1724-1725. Instead, practices indicate deadlines contexts various cases, wide "variety practices," implement instance. 99, n. 24, 1725, 24. Undoubtedly, then, adopt sworn, selected. 23 given sufficiency limit itself depends power procedure. "Novelty requirements permitted thwart who, justified reliance decisions, vindication courts rights." NAACP Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 449, 457-458, 78 1163, 1169-1170, 1488 (1958). rule, even though appeared retrospect form part consistent procedures," "deemed apprised existence." 457, 11. 346 (1984), practice" 1835-1837; see Barr City Columbia, 378 146, 149, 84 1734, 1736, 766 (1964) (state strictly review); Flowers, 377 288, 297, 1302, 1308, 325 (procedural "pointless severity shown here"). 24 us remotely satisfy applied. tried, years over. When same allowed object sworn. very raising sworn preliminary instructions, lengthy unrelated matter. entertained "relatively promptly" earlier objection. 25 oath consequently within meaning disclaimed decision. It "hereafter [that] "hereafter," prospectively Since firmly question, need dwell inconsistent fail followed.7 III 26 relying (1977). judgment reversed, proceedings opinion. 27 ordered. indictment included five counts: (count 1); rape 2); kidnaping 3); armed robbery 4); burglary 5). October 9, reads: "Now comes JAMES Defendant above styled action, moves Prosecution Jury. support Motion, shows: "1. "The Prosecutor over Jury involve "2. "This involves "3. "It anticipated strikes. "4. receive excessive punishment guilty, inject prejudice finding process See McCray vs. New York, [461 961, 103 2438, 77 1322 (1983) ]. Louisana (sic), 522 [95 690] (1975)." By statute, allots "[e]very offense imprisonment less four years." Ga.Code Ann. 15-12-165 allotted cases. Ibid. disagree whether, renewed Its renewal decision, purposes discussion press includes "pre-trial selected." 764, suggests possibility read objecting defendant, raises hold insufficiently specific 839, anticipation unconstitutional motion. What anticipatory allege exact number details inference purpose. But correctly substantial proportion members, reasons. has, conceded misled thinking objected anything 31-32. announcing refusal entertain event open consideration. 658 compelling posture here. asserted promptly special

Category: 8