Pitchford v. Cain · ¶41

He hadn't, the court ruled, because he had failed to rebut the State's step two submission in the trial court. Put simply, Mr. Pitchford had “waive[d]” any step three argument. Id., at 227, n. 16 (internal quotation marks omitted). Yes, Mr. Pitchford “devoted a considerable portion” of his appellate brief to a step three comparative juror argument, expanding on the one-sentence version he introduced for the first time in his post-trial motion. Id., at 227. But, the court held, Mr. Pitchford had not adequately presented this argument to the trial court in the first instance. Ibid. And, the court added, it could “not now fault the trial judge with failing to discern whether the State's race-neutral reasons were overcome by rebuttal evidence and argument never presented.” Ibid.

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