Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Berghuis v. Smith (08-1402), a case involving issues of jury discrimination disparity analysis and AEDPA deference.
In 1993, Diapolis Smith was convicted for the second-degree murder of Christopher Rumbly at a bar in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Smith claimed that his Sixth Amendment right to a venire (jury pool) representing a fair-cross-section of the community was violated because the percentage of African Americans who appeared for jury service was lower than the percentage of African Americans living in Kent County, Michigan. The Michigan Supreme Court rejected Smith's argument. It found that Smith had "failed to establish a legally significant disparity under either the absolute or comparative disparity tests" and that he failed to demonstrate systematic exclusion of minorities.
Smith's habeas petition was denied by the federal district court, but the Sixth Circuit reversed. It concluded that the Michigan state courts acted unreasonably when they found the minority underrepresentation in Smith's case was constitutionally insignificant.
Today's arguments are likely to focus on whether the state supreme court reasonably applied Sixth Amendment precedent to reach a correct decision on the merits, and whether the Michigan Supreme Court reasonably applied the three-part test established in Duren v. Missouri. Michigan Solicitor General, B.Eric Restuccia will be arguing for the state of Michigan, and James Sterling Lawrence will be arguing for Smith.
Today's oral arguments are previewed here and here on SCOTUSblog. The second post features five minute podcasts from participants in the case. CJLF's Kent Scheidegger summarizes the issues before the court and argues that the Sixth Amendment does not contain a "fair cross-section" requirement. The podcast provided by Lawrence, Smith's attorney, could well be a preview of what he will argue before the court today.
In 1993, Diapolis Smith was convicted for the second-degree murder of Christopher Rumbly at a bar in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Smith claimed that his Sixth Amendment right to a venire (jury pool) representing a fair-cross-section of the community was violated because the percentage of African Americans who appeared for jury service was lower than the percentage of African Americans living in Kent County, Michigan. The Michigan Supreme Court rejected Smith's argument. It found that Smith had "failed to establish a legally significant disparity under either the absolute or comparative disparity tests" and that he failed to demonstrate systematic exclusion of minorities.
Smith's habeas petition was denied by the federal district court, but the Sixth Circuit reversed. It concluded that the Michigan state courts acted unreasonably when they found the minority underrepresentation in Smith's case was constitutionally insignificant.
Today's arguments are likely to focus on whether the state supreme court reasonably applied Sixth Amendment precedent to reach a correct decision on the merits, and whether the Michigan Supreme Court reasonably applied the three-part test established in Duren v. Missouri. Michigan Solicitor General, B.Eric Restuccia will be arguing for the state of Michigan, and James Sterling Lawrence will be arguing for Smith.
Today's oral arguments are previewed here and here on SCOTUSblog. The second post features five minute podcasts from participants in the case. CJLF's Kent Scheidegger summarizes the issues before the court and argues that the Sixth Amendment does not contain a "fair cross-section" requirement. The podcast provided by Lawrence, Smith's attorney, could well be a preview of what he will argue before the court today.
Leave a comment