Miller-El v. Dretke (2005)
Miller-El v. Dretke (2005): Proving Batson Violations — A Texas Case at the Supreme Court
Comparative juror analysis, historical policies, and strike patterns can expose discriminatory jury selection.
Background
Texas death-penalty defendant Thomas Miller-El argued prosecutors used peremptory strikes to exclude Black jurors. The state courts accepted the prosecution’s race-neutral reasons. On federal habeas review, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the record, including Dallas County DA training materials and side-by-side comparisons of struck Black jurors and seated white jurors.
Questions Presented
- What evidence can demonstrate purposeful racial discrimination under Batson?
- How should courts evaluate prosecutors’ race-neutral explanations?
Majority Opinion — Justice David Souter
Holding: The totality of the record established a Batson violation. Comparative juror analysis, historical prosecution policies, and statistical patterns showed purposeful discrimination.
The Court emphasized rigorous, reality-based review over rote acceptance of stated reasons. If a prosecutor accepts white jurors with the same traits used to strike Black jurors (e.g., hesitation about the death penalty, equivocal answers), that inconsistency reveals pretext. Training materials encouraging race-based strategies, disproportionate use of strikes, and disparate questioning are powerful proof. The opinion instructs lower courts to look at how the process actually unfolded—not just the labels offered in court.
For Montgomery County defense, Miller-El is a blueprint. Build a record fast: track strike rates; chart answers of struck vs. seated jurors; note different questions by race; and request the State’s notes or training materials where appropriate. Combine Miller-El with Texas decisions like Ex parte Wheeler to insist on meaningful Batson hearings. A successful Batson challenge can mandate a new trial or reversal, safeguarding a client’s right to an impartial jury chosen without discrimination.