Pitchford v. Cain · ¶17

Applying that AEDPA standard, the U. S. District Court concluded that the Mississippi Supreme Court had unreasonably applied Batson and had unreasonably determined that Pitchford waived his Batson objection. The District Court stated: “Simply put, no state court—whether it be the majority in the Mississippi Supreme Court or the trial court—conducted a full three-step Batson inquiry on the State's use of its peremptory strikes . . . . The trial court, seemingly eager to proceed to the case itself, quickly deemed the reasons as race-neutral and moved on.” 706 F. Supp. 3d, at 626. The District Court further explained that Pitchford had not waived his Batson claim. The District Court noted that Pitchford initially raised a Batson objection. And after the trial court completed the jury selection process, Pitchford “raised the issue again and confirmed it was on the record.” Id., at 624. But…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.