Gilliard v. Mississippi

Background

A Black defendant pleaded guilty to killing Grady Chance during an armed robbery and faced a separate sentencing trial under Mississippi law. After for-cause challenges, the jury panel included seven Black prospective jurors; the prosecutor used peremptory strikes (lawyers’ ability to excuse jurors without giving a reason) to remove those jurors and then removed the remaining Black juror, leaving an all-white jury. The defendant moved to quash the panel; the trial court denied the motion, and the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, relying on earlier federal and state decisions.

Reasoning

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the Court’s denial of review. He argued that the prosecutor’s removal of Black jurors raised a prima facie claim of racial exclusion and that once that claim is made the burden should shift to the prosecution to explain the strikes. Marshall criticized the Court’s reliance on Swain v. Alabama and state courts that follow it, saying the Swain rule makes it too hard to prove discriminatory jury strikes and that the federal judiciary should act now rather than wait for more state experimentation.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to review the case, the death sentence imposed by the all-white jury remains in place. Marshall warned that delaying review allows executions to proceed before constitutional claims of racial jury exclusion can be resolved, and he urged the Court to grant review and vacate the sentence in cases with this pattern.

Dissents or concurrances

Marshall’s dissent elaborates that, even apart from his view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, he would have granted review and vacated the sentence because the record shows systematic exclusion of Black jurors.