Foster V. Chatman Case Summary

Procedural History

In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.

Essential Facts of the Case

The Foster v. Chatman case is about Timothy Foster, who is a deprived, mentally disabled, black adolescent accused of killing a white female. The major concern is his trial which included only white juries after the exclusion of the potential black jurors from jury service in his trial. The prosecution afterward ruled that Foster should be given a death sentence to prevent other individuals from similar projects. During the time, almost all the people in the projects were of the black race, including Timothy’s family. The jury ruled a death sentence to Foster.

The Foster case presents the query of whether Timothy was convicted and sentenced to death in infringement of the U.S. Constitution pledge of equal defense of the laws. Besides, it demonstrates an imperative matter concerning the involvement of black people as jurors. It also proves that court must consider in settling on whether prosecutors involved used their strikes in an ethnically unfair way.
Timothy Foster contends that there is broad and undeniable proof that prosecutors practiced ethnic discrimination intentionally in ensuring an all-white panel of judges in his case. At the court, the prosecutor managed to dismiss all the potential black judges who were in the panel from which the jury was chosen. When Timothy asked about those strikes, the court presented a number of general ethnic-neutral reasons as rationalization for the strikes, which were approved. After two decades, Timothy got the prosecution’s judges lists and details of the judges’ selection via the Georgia’s Records Act. The details differed from the initial reasons given for eliminating the black jurors and provided thorough proof that the court eliminated the jurors based on their ethnicity. Nevertheless, the Georgia courts declined to consider this proof, stating that Timothy had already claimed about the discrimination on his initial appeal.

Issue Before The Court

Was there any race-based discrimination in the jury selection process of Foster’s trial?

Holding of the Court
Yes, Foster claimed that the prosecutor’s notes clearly showed that the black jurors were excluded due to their race.

The details disclosed that the prosecution highlighted the names of the potential black judges and tinted every black potential juror’s name in a different color. There were four different duplicates of the record of all of the individuals summoned for the task in the case. Evert record had a key, which indicated that the highlighted names represented the blacks. Besides, there were no any blotches made for the white jurors on the lists. There were also many marks made on the black people’s names on the juror questionnaires, and there was no any other race that was

marked.
The ethnic-coded lists were dispersed all over the district attorney's office, revealing a culture and making an obvious racial distinction. They positioned the three potential black jurors in three numbers in case they had to select a black juror. They also formed strike lists which prioritized beating the potential black jurors over the others. The prosecutor’s ethnic-coded records and notes were not accessible to the judge who dismissed the claim of unfairness at Timothy’s trial and the Georgia highest Court, which maintained the death sentence on appeal.

Opinion Of The Court
(4)

Dissenting Opinion
(2)

Commentary and Discussion

The prosecutors argued that they did not eliminate the black jurors because of their background. They gave almost twelve rationales for every strike of a black judge and added even more justifications after trial, underrating their credibility in the procedure. The complete number of the rationales offered underrates the legitimacy of every personal reason. Besides, some of the rationales were false, some were disagreeing with by the prosecutors’ list, and others applied similarly to white potential judges that the prosecution approved.
According to Foster, the prosecutors stated that they should eliminate one black woman as she was a social employee, but she was not one. They also mentioned that they eliminated another black woman because she was young, but they accepted white potential jurors that were almost the same age. Furthermore, they asserted that they eliminated a Christian black member as the church was is usually against the death penalty. However, the prosecution’s details revealed that the church did not counter the death sentence and left the matter to every member. The black Christian whom they eliminated repeatedly mentioned when answering queries in the jury selection procedure that he did not counter the death sentence and could rule it. Furthermore, the prosecutors asserted that they eliminated a potential black juror since Timothy's attorneys had not asked him regarding social institutions. However, according to Foster, the attorneys did not inquire for any jurors regarding their memberships in communal organizations. The involved juror had previously mentioned that he did not belong to any of the communal organizations.
The main issue concerning the Foster’s case is his trial as it consisted of white juries only, while all potential black juries were eliminated from jury service in his trial. In fact, the case makes one wonder whether the decision of the court to sentence Timothy to death did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s pledge of equal defense of all people regardless of their social, racial, or cultural background. Besides, it presents an imperative matter concerning the involvement of black people as jurors. After going through the Georgia’s records, Foster noted that the prosecutor’s notes were clearly showing that the black jurors were excluded due to their race. All the reasons he states reveal clearly that the case was racially biased. I believe that Foster’s case was against the American Constitution that guarantees the citizens equal protection of rights.