The first problem is giving any credence to race at all. Justice is supposed to be blind.
Yes, justice is supposed to be blind, but it can't be blind when justice itself is carried out in the context of racial discrimination by selecting jurors based on their race.
The second problem is playing the race card with a white murderer and a white victim.
The race card wasn't played with regard to the murderer or the victim, it was played with regard to the jury selection process, which taints everything that happens after that, regardless of the race of the defendant or the victim.
The problem isn't even the racial makeup of the resultant jury, the problem was how the prosecution used its peremptory challenge powers to dismiss certain potential jurors to attain the jury which resulted. The process itself was the problem, not the result. The goal of jury selection is supposed to ensure full representation by the entire community in the justice system, regardless if the defendant is black or white. To exclude people based on race seriously undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the justice system as a whole.
A peremptory challenge is when a prosecutor or a defense attorney dismisses a potential juror without stating a valid reason for doing so. A certain number of potential jurors can be dismissed outright without having to give a reason, because stating the reason in open court could in some cases taint the jury itself. If jurors know why others were dismissed, they might change their own answer during the selection process to either get themselves dismissed, or to prevent from being dismissed, or they could disagree with the reason for dismissing a juror and then use that in deliberations against whichever side dismissed the juror.
The reason for dismissing a potential juror must still be valid, whether it's stated or not. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge (no stated valid reason) may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. It was the 1986 "Batson challenge" case where the Supreme Court decision rules that jurors cannot be barred for jury service for race-based reasons. The standard requires attorneys to have "race-neutral" reasons for striking people from the jury pool and to be able to prove it, if challenged.
The prosecution struck 11 of the 14 blacks in the jury pool of 80 potential jurors using peremptory challenges. The defense struck two blacks. That left one black to serve on the 12-person jury. In addition to the 11 blacks the prosecution removed, they also struck 22 whites. Based on that alone it wouldn't appear that race played any part of their decisions. However...
In reviewing the questions posed to prospective jurors, the justices surmised, "the record creates an inference of discrimination on the part of the state."
The case was returned to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, but the Supreme Court warned that if Madison County prosecutors "cannot provide racially neutral reasons" for its use of strikes of black jurors, Sharp must receive a new trial.
So, as long as the Madison County prosecutors can show race was not a factor in dismissing as many black jurors as they could, the Appeals Court will uphold the conviction. But at the Appeals Court review the prosecution didn't do a very good job of that. The prosecution argued that the case involved DNA evidence and jurors needed some level of either social or professional sophistication to follow the evidence. Opposition to the death penalty, prior experience as either a criminal defendant or victim, and some possible court scheduling conflicts for Seventh-Day Adventists, were among the other chief reasons cited for the strikes.
The court also found prosecutors used inconsistent standards in striking some black jurors and selecting white jurors. Those included a strike for a black woman who was studying to be a minister, while accepting a white already-a-minister on the panel. Another strike was used for a black juror whose questionnaire answer held the state to a burden of proof "beyond all doubt." That juror was struck, but six white jurors who answered the same exact way sat on the jury.
The court was especially pointed on the issue of "social or professional sophistication," affecting seven of the 11 strikes.
"In other words, 63 percent of the State's strikes against African-American jurors were based, at least in part, on those jurors' supposed lack of intelligence," the court wrote.
"This is a troubling statistic in light of the historically suspect nature of this reason. Equally troubling is the fact that the record does not support any of the State's strikes for this reason."
The appeals process is has not yet been completed, and if the state doesn't prevail, they will simply try the case again. In the meantime, because Sharp faces a capital murder charge, even if the reversal is upheld and the state loses the appeal, he is not eligible for bond pending a second trial. He stays incarcerated until the case is resolved.
