The Supreme Court refuses to accept Georgia's death penalty case

The solicitors on Tharpe focused on an affidavit from an interview seven years after the sentence of Tharpe. Juror Barney Gattie used racist slaves for African Americans. He also questioned whether "souls were even black people."

The court heard this case back in 2018, and revived the Tarpe case on the conflicts of the Judges Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

Now the state of Georgia is free to set an execution date.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the decision of the court not to take the case, partly because the lower court had not ruled out "sufficient justification for failing to raise the claim of juror bias" in a timely manner. T .

Sotomayor said that she respected the denial of heat in the case because she did not meet the value of Tarpe's racially motivated claim. But she wrote separately to say that the basic facts of the case were "deeply concerned."

"It might be tempting to dismiss a tarpe case as an outlier, but the racial bias is bad," Sotomayor wrote. “This evil often makes a lot more than here. But Gattie's attitude – and how they went unexpectedly for a long time, avoiding reviews of the merits – as a demonstration demonstration that racism can enter the jury system. "

A lawyer for Tharpe criticized the court's decision.

"Today's decision from the United States makes huge steps back from the long-standing commitment of the court to eliminate the adverse effects of racial discrimination on the administration of criminal justice," Marcia Widder said in a statement.

"As Judge Sotomayor explained in his statement agreeing with the disclaimer of certiorari, the court's action in refusing the petition in respect of Mr Tarpe's claim – a claim she had noticed, was not connected until the present day. It was never considered on its merits 'Instead, she noted that the court was obliged to postpone complex procedural controls put by the federal courts and appeals before the court,' Follow Widder.

When the court heard the case for the first time in 2018, it said that the Tarpe legal team had made a "fantastic" affidavit from a juror, written after the conviction, which had presented a "strong factual basis" to the argument that had been affected. at the Tharpe race on the jurors vote.

However, the majority then cautioned that there was a "high ban on Tarpe" to show that dissidents charged with disagreement could "conclude with the view of the state court.

On further review, the lower court again ruled against Tarpe, finding that it did not fulfill the procedural burdens necessary to reopen his case. The court also confirmed that the Supreme Court's opinion in 2017 did not state that the secrecy of the jury can be discussed when there is evidence that a juror relying on the racist animus applied retrospectively to the Tharpe case.


Leave a comment

Send a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.