Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Miller-El v. Dretke

Docket No.: 03-9659
Certiorari Granted: Jun 28 2004
Argued: December 6, 2004
Decided: June 13, 2005

Topics:

Criminal Procedure, Civil Rights, Habeas Corpus, Desegregation, Civil Rights Act, EPA, Title VII, Voir Dire, disparate impact, disparate treatment, habeas, habeas corpus, jury selection, murder, patent, racial discrimination

PartyNames: Thomas Joe Miller-El v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Petitioner: Thomas Joe Miller-El
Respondent: Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Citation: 361 F3d 849
Supreme Court Docket

Thomas Joe Miller-El
v.
Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
545 U.S. 231 (2005)
Question Presented:

Whether the Court of Appeals--in reinstating on remand from this Court its prior rejection of petitioner's claim that the prosecution had purposefully excluded AfricanAmericans from his capital jury in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)--so contravened this Court's decision and analysis of the evidence in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), that "an exercise of this Court's supervisory powers" under Supreme Court Rule 10(a) is required to sustain the protections against invidious discrimination set forth in Batson and Miller-El and the safeguards against arbitrary fact-finding set forth in 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 2254(d)(2) and (e)(l).

Question:

Did the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, by rejecting Miller-El's claim the prosecution purposefully excluded blacks from his jury, violate the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller-El v. Cockrell (2003)? 2. Did the Texas jury selection manual encourage unconstitutional disparate questioning based on race?

Miller-El v. Dretke
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 6, 2004

Holding: reversed and remanded
Vote: 6-3
Opinion By:

Miller-El v. Dretke
Case Documents

1Opinion in Miller-El v. Dretke
2Opinion in Miller-El v. Dretke
Additional documents for this case are pending review.