No, the Courts Are Not Blind With
Respect to Race
Seven years later, one of the jurors,
Barney Gattie, signed an affidavit explaining his reasoning. He said
he had drawn a distinction between Mr. Tharpe and his victim, both of
whom were black.
“The
Freemans are what I would call a nice Black family,” Mr. Gattie
wrote. “In my experience I have observed that there are two types
of black people. 1. Black folks and 2. Niggers.”
“Because
I knew the victim and her husband’s family and knew them all to be
good black folks, I felt Tharpe, who wasn’t in the ‘good’ black
folks category in my book, should get the electric chair for what he
did,” Mr. Gattie wrote.
“After studying the Bible,” he
added, “I have wondered if black people even have souls.”
Ok, no question the defendant needs a new trial, deserves a new
trial. But he could not get one and the case moved to the Supreme
Court.
WASHINGTON — Saying that a capital
trial in Georgia may have been marred by a juror’s racism, the
Supreme Court on Monday gave a death row inmate there a fresh chance
to argue that he should receive a new trial.
The court’s opinion was brief
and unsigned. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel A.
Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, filed a lengthy dissent accusing the
majority of “ceremonial hand-wringing.”
Wow, three dissenters. And the most disgusting of all was Justice
Thomas's dissent.
“In bending the rules here to show its concern for a black capital
inmate, the court must think it is showing its concern for racial
justice,” Justice Thomas wrote. “It is not.”
Mr. Tharpe was bound to lose in the long run given the difficulty of
challenging state capital convictions in federal court, Justice
Thomas wrote. He added that Mr. Gattie had been drinking when he
signed the affidavit and later submitted a second one saying he had
not voted for the death penalty based on Mr. Tharpe’s race.
“The court must be disturbed by the racist rhetoric” in the first
affidavit, Justice Thomas wrote, “and must want to do something
about it. But the court’s decision is no profile in moral courage.”
“By remanding this case to the court of appeals for a useless
do-over, the court is not doing Tharpe any favors,” he added. “And
its unusual disposition of his case callously delays justice for
Jaquelin Freeman, the black woman who was brutally murdered by Tharpe
27 years ago. Because this court should not be in the business of
ceremonial hand-wringing, I respectfully dissent.”
Just imagine if the situation were reversed, if the juror had been
black and the defendant white. Instant reversal. And how in the
world does a person get to be a juror on a murder trial where he knew
the parties? Oh, when you give ineffective counsel to a black
defendant that's what happens.