Tharpe v. Sellers
Headline: Death-row inmate’s claim that a juror expressed racial hatred leads Court to vacate appeals judgment and remand for reconsideration of his right to appeal, pausing lower-court finality.
Holding: The Court accepted review, vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment, and remanded to decide whether a death-row inmate should be allowed permission to appeal based on a juror’s racist affidavit.
- Remands case for further review on whether inmate can get permission to appeal.
- Allows juror’s sworn racist affidavit to be weighed anew by lower courts.
- Temporarily pauses finality of the death sentence while appeals proceed.
Summary
Background
Keith Tharpe is a death-row inmate in Georgia who says a white juror, Barney Gattie, was biased against him because he is black. After his trial and state postconviction proceedings, Gattie signed a sworn affidavit using racial slurs and saying race influenced his vote; he later gave a second affidavit and testified differently about drinking alcohol. Tharpe moved in federal court under Rule 60(b) to reopen his habeas case.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether reasonable judges could debate that Tharpe showed "clear and convincing" evidence contradicting the state court’s finding that the juror’s vote did not rely on race. The per curiam opinion said Gattie’s sworn affidavit presents a strong factual basis that race affected the death vote, so the Eleventh Circuit erred in saying no reasonable jurist could disagree. The Court nevertheless noted Rule 60(b)(6) relief requires extraordinary circumstances and a high bar.
Real world impact
The decision sends the case back for renewed consideration of whether Tharpe may get permission to appeal his juror-bias claim. It pauses finality of his death sentence and allows lower courts to reassess the sworn affidavit and related evidence. This is not a final ruling on guilt or innocence or a final decision on the claim; the Court emphasized the high threshold for reopening judgments and that Tharpe still may fail to obtain further relief.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, dissented. He argued the Court misread the lower courts, criticized the remand as a needless delay, stressed other grounds supported denial, and said the remand would not prevent Tharpe’s execution or vindicate the victim’s family.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?