TIMOTHY TYRONE FOSTER, PETITIONER v. BRUCE CHATMAN, WARDEN
Supreme Court of the United States, Roberts, May 23, 2016,
Batson – 1987 murder conviction overturned where State provided “implausible” and “fantastic” assertions in response to defense evidence that jurors were removed on basis of race

(Concur – Alito – Yes, there was a violation, but the State should decide whether it is barred by res judicata)
(Dissent – Thomas – This claim was already considered and rejected at the State level; wrong of the court to fact-find)

Never a good thing when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refers to your argument as “nonsense.” This seems to be a fairly fact-specific case given the extensive nature of the proof offered, but for a case barely younger than the Batson decision itself (decided in 1986) it was interesting that the Court granted cert.

Then again, the facts were pretty egregious.
– All 4 black jurors in jury pool were struck by the State
– The names of the black jurors were highlighted green and marked with a “B”
– Note that “if it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors, [this one] might be ok”
– Notes on the black jurors were written as “B#1”, “B#2”, etc.
– Note next to church affiliation said “No Black Church”
– Juror questionnaires had the race question circled
– etc

Until you consider that “Thirty years ago, Timothy Foster confessed to murdering Queen Madge White after sexually assaulting her with a bottle of salad dressing,” and then you’re provided some context for the word “egregious” (I’ll nunc-pro-tunc change the above use to “bad”).