The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Terry Pitchford, a Black death row inmate in Mississippi who argues that racial bias shaped the jury selection in his trial. In an unusual move, the justices also granted Pitchford permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he will not have to pay court fees associated with bringing the case—relief that is only rarely granted.
Why It Matters
Pitchford was sentenced to death for the 2004 murder of Reuben Britt. He contends that the prosecutor who tried his case had a pattern of striking Black jurors in a racially discriminatory way, according to the Associated Press (AP). The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case—and to waive Pitchford’s fees—signals that the justices may see potential merit in the claims or the legal questions presented.
What to Know
Pitchford’s conviction was previously overturned by a federal judge, but that decision was later reversed by an appeals court, the AP reported. The Supreme Court will now review whether Pitchford’s conviction and death sentence can stand.
In jury selection for his trial, the pool was narrowed to 36 white prospective jurors and five Black prospective jurors, the AP reported. Prosecutors then struck four Black jurors, leaving just one Black juror seated on the final panel. Pitchford’s attorneys argue those strikes were discriminatory and point to what they describe as the prosecutor’s history of removing Black jurors for improper reasons.
The court addressed a similar issue involving the same prosecutor in 2019, when it overturned the conviction and death sentence of Curtis Flowers.
Why the Fee Waiver Stands Out
Although many petitioners ask to proceed in forma pauperis, only a small share are granted. This term, about two of 27 such requests have been approved. A 2009 study by David C. Thompson and Melanie F. Wachtell found that 3.5 percent of in forma pauperis requests were granted during the 2005–2006 term.
Courts are “inundated” with these requests, which often lack merit, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek on Monday.
“It is rare, so more than half of appeals for the Supreme Court are IFP appeals and that’s because inmates have nothing to do, so they file these appeals. Some of them are handwritten. There are a lot of jailhouse lawyers,” he said.
Rahmani added that the discriminatory-jury-strikes allegation may be easier to present because the numbers are stark.
“Looking at it from a purely numbers perspective, you don’t even have to get into the legal analysis, right? You can say X number of potential Black jurors. All but one of them ended up getting struck by the prosecutor. I think it’s just an easier case to present,” he said.
What People Are Saying
Pitchford’s lawyers Joseph Perkovich, Joseph Welling and J. Scott Gilbert wrote in a petition to the Supreme Court: “On February 6, 2006, Mr. Pitchford’s jury was seated in the Grenada Circuit Court, with District Attorney Evans, exclusively, exercising the prosecution’s four strikes presently at issue. Judge Loper sustained each of these strikes over the defense’s Batson objections, thereby supplying the basis for this certiorari petition.”
Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch wrote in response: “Petitioner first asks this Court to decide whether the state courts violated clearly established federal law by not considering “evidence” and “circumstances” on his Batson claim that he failed to argue or present to the trial court. Pet. i; see Pet. 6, 15-32. That issue does not further warrant review. The court of appeals correctly ruled that no decision of this Court clearly establishes that a trial court or reviewing court must, in assessing a Batson claim, consider arguments or facts that a Batson challenger did not present to the trial judge and raised only on appeal.”
What Happens Next
Arguments in the case are expected in the spring of 2026, the AP reported.
