Pitchford v. Cain · ¶47

Nor does the Mississippi Supreme Court's application of its rule offend any of our precedents. The court recognized that Mr. Pitchford had preserved a step one statistical argument, but held that he had waived the step three comparative juror argument he sought to press on appeal by failing to raise it during jury selection or trial. See id., at 227–228. The Court today suggests this analysis “slices Batson . . . too thin[ly].” Ante, at 400. Yet it nowhere pauses to identify any of our clearly established precedents the Mississippi Supreme Court supposedly defed or mistook.

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