Pitchford v. Cain · ¶50

But that much is far from clear. Rather than announcing an intent to raise a new step three comparative juror argument at the conclusion of jury selection, Mr. Pitchford's attorneys said only that they “want[ed] to reserve . . . [their] Batson objection,” which sounds like a reference to the step one statistical argument they had made earlier. 1 App. 175. Supporting that inference, counsel proceeded to repeat the same statistical argument they had already made. Id., at 175–176. True, resting on that point alone might not have been the best move. But considering what happened later, it hardly seems an unlikely explanation. After his appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court failed, Mr. Pitchford sought state post-conviction relief. And in support of that effort, one of his trial attorneys expressly represented that she had “ `failed to challenge the prosecution's reasons as pretextual at…

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