Document: 503 U.S. 562 112 S.Ct. 1547 118 L.Ed.2d 193 Joe Mario TREVINOv.TEXAS. No. 91-6751. April 6, 1992. PER CURIAM. 1 * The State of Texas charged petitioner Trevino for the murder and rape Blanche Miller, a capital offense. On February 1, 1984, before jury selection, filed "Motion to Prohibit from Using Peremptory Challenges Strike Members Cognizable Group." motion recited: 2 "The Accused requests Court that be prohibited its use peremptory challenges strike prospective jurors merely based on fact race. prosecution, Texas, historically habitually uses black people other minorities who are otherwise qualified. These exercised by in effort produce an ethnically pure, all white, jury. This common State's challenge criminal trial deprives due process fair trial. practice representing cross-section community violation Sixth Amendment United States Constitution. 3 A hearing is requested this Motion." 1A Record 280. 4 court delayed ruling until voir dire. During course dire, prosecution excuse only three members venire. After each these strikes, petitioner, Hispanic, renewed his motion, asking state reasons striking jurors. first time stated: "I know no requirement yet either party announce exercising preemptory [sic ] challenge. Can you cite me some law that?" 11 356. In response, petitioner's counsel cited McCray v. Abrams, 576 F.Supp. 1244 (EDNY), aff'd part rev'd part, 750 F.2d 1113 (CA2 1984). He went note when we denied petition writ certiorari New York, 461 961, 103 2438, 77 1322 (1983), five Justices expressed view Swain Alabama, 380 202, 85 824, 13 759 (1965), ought reexamined. it again after two more venire were excluded. 5 all-white returned verdict guilty sentencing affirmative answers special questions posed court. See Jurek 428 262, 267-269, 96 2950, 2954-2955, 49 929 (1976) (joint opinion Stewart, Powell, STEVENS, JJ.). As required under such circumstances, see ibid., sentenced death. Petitioner appealed Criminal Appeals filing brief December 19, 1985. cause now us. 24 errors guilt punishment phases proceedings. one concern prosecutor's 6 contended prosecution's race violated "rights impartial fairly drawn representative cross section community." Brief Appellant 69337, p. 11. found rights "the Fourteenth Amendments Constitution," as well provisions Ibid. asserted he was renewing objections pressed at acknowledged discriminate single case would not equal protection but noted Batson Kentucky, cert. granted, 471 1052, 105 2111, 476 (1985), reconsider question Amendment. When filed, had heard oral argument Batson, announced our decision. urged even if did alter alleging overall scheme discrimination, should prohibit matter law. 7 30, 1986, long Appeals, decision came down. 79, 106 1712, 90 69. familiar rule defendant makes prima facie showing has exclude defendant's racial group, bears burden coming forward with neutral justification. Just over month decided, Appeals. argued could avail because member same excluded According State, claim considered instead entitled composed "fair cross-section" community. Appellee pp. 15-17. drawing distinction, relied does unless alleges protected class he. We rejected last Term Powers Ohio, 499 ----, 111 1364, 113 411 (1991). 8 sitting en banc, affirmed conviction sentence June 12, 1991, application rehearing September 18, 1991. set forth reason delay years between submission briefs resolution appeal. With respect question, stated foreclosed Holland Illinois, 493 474, 110 803, 107 905 (1990), which held potential 815 S.W.2d 592, 598. footnote, arguments amount reliance Equal Protection Clause. Id., 598, n. 3. court's neither nor Ford Georgia, 498 850, 935 (1991), decided grant certiorari. II 9 addressed what steps take preserve objection during pre-Batson era. Here consider whether took those steps. 10 Ford, pre-trial Restrict Racial Use Challenges," U.S., S.Ct., 852, wording material respects parallel present ultimate issue concerned validity procedural rule, reaching ruled preliminary issue, dispositive here. threshold issues and, so, presented cognizable exercise rested impermissible ground Clause think must treated having raised claim, although certainly failed do clarity appropriate citations have promoted. pretrial made mention Clause, later new Amendment, Fourteenth." ---- - 854-855. 12 Despite inartfulness assertion rights, reference exclusion "over period time," effect "could reasonably been intended interpreted raise evidentiary theory articulated § antecedent, Alabama." 855. placed interpretation history standard proof "case case." 223, 837. us also historical pattern discriminatory challenges. That alone sufficient place Of course, more. express fact, modify courts anticipate decide 14 determine further preserved His caption review very 15 recognized contained albeit believed lack merit. argue making legal support. Given holding supra, contention incorrect. 16 cannot ignore hold forfeited failing precision, applying stricter than applied itself. There conceded direct provision Kentucky 83, 1715. Yet allegation question. 84-85, 4, 1716, 4. Because here review, Batson. Compare Griffith 479 314, 708, 93 649 (1987) (giving retroactive cases pending or final decided) Teague Lane, 489 288, 296, 109 1060, 1067, 334 (1989) (denying similar collateral review). 17 leave proceed forma pauperis granted. judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 18 It so ordered.

Category: 8