October Term 2018 · Docket 17-9572
Does a prosecutor's repeated removal of Black jurors violate the Constitution?
Mississippi prosecutors removed most Black jurors in five prior trials. The state argues the sixth trial's removals were race-neutral. The defendant claims the pattern proves racial intent.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Johnson argued the evidence shows the prosecutor aimed to seat few Black jurors.
She cited the striking numbers from the first four trials.
Mr. Davis argued the history is confined to this specific case.
He noted the town has only five thousand residents.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 34-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 34-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-20 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 11-18 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 11-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 21-22 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 21-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 27-22 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 27-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 20-6 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 20-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-6 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-20 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-26
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case involves a sixth criminal trial in a small Mississippi town. The defendant argues the prosecutor removed Black jurors based on race. The state argues the removals relied on neutral reasons. The Court must decide if the history proves unconstitutional intent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 27-22 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 27-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-18
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 20, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
What each side wants
The defendant wants a new trial without the removed jurors.
The state wants to proceed with the current jury panel.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 27-22 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 27-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-18
What each side says
The defendant argues the cumulative history proves racial intent.
The state argues the current removals relied on neutral factors.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 27-22 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 27-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-18
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the jury array questioned debts to a store.
Justice Alito asked if a juror sued by a party creates bias.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 34-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 34-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-20 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 11-18 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 11-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 21-22 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 21-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 20-6 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 20-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-6 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-20 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-26
Why it matters
This dispute defines how courts evaluate prosecutor conduct in jury selection. It determines whether past patterns can prove current racial intent. The outcome shapes fair trial standards for all criminal defendants.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 27-22 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 27-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-18
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 34-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 34-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-20 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 11-18 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 11-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 21-22 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 21-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 20-6 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 20-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-6 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-20 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-26
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 27-22 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 27-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 27-22 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 27-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-18
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.