The US Supreme Court will begin Wednesday to examine the case of a black man who was tried six separate times for the same crime — which he insists he didn’t commit — in a process tarnished by charges of racism.
The country’s top court will not pronounce on the guilt of Curtis Flowers, a 48-year-old man who has spent almost half his life behind bars, nor on the relentless push to secure his conviction.
Instead, the court will be looking into whether the prosecutor in charge of the case deliberately worked to keep black people off the jury during Flowers’ most recent trial in 2010, in which he was sentenced to death.
“Curtis Flowers was always tried by an all-white jury or a nearly all-white jury, even though the place where the murders happened and where he lived was nearly 50 percent African-American,” said Madeleine Baran, a journalist who reported on the case in her podcast “Into the Dark.”
Together with a radio colleague from American Public Media, she spent a year in Winona, Mississippi, where the case began on July 16, 1996 with the cold-blooded murder of four people in a furniture shop.
In that southern state, with a history of slavery and segregation, “I met only one white person who thought that Curtis Flowers was innocent,” she told AFP.
By contrast, “the vast majority” of African-Americans thought Flowers was either innocent or that the case itself was flawed.
Flowers had briefly worked in the furniture store before the shooting occurred, and was arrested in January 1997 after two witnesses placed him near the scene of the crime.
Since then he has been tried for the murders a total of six times — in 1997, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2008 and finally in 2010 — each time maintaining his innocence.
“Certainly to be tried six times is unusual,” said Baran, who investigated precedents and found only one other such case, of someone tried nine times for the same crime.
US law forbids suspects being judged for the same crime twice, but Flowers faced the legal ordeal because he was never actually acquitted.
He was convicted at his first three trials but the verdicts were overturned by the state Supreme Court for prosecutorial misconduct. Those cases were followed by two more trials which resulted in a hung jury.
– Absence of prosecutorial restraint –
Alerted to Flowers’ story by a listener, Baran became fascinated by the case because it highlighted the lack of constraints governing the behavior of prosecutors in the 50 US states.
In Flowers’ case, a single district attorney, Doug Evans, who is white, steered all the prosecutions during the six trials. Elected by the citizens of his district in 1991, he can only ever be removed from his job if he loses an election.
Yet the first three trials against Flowers were thrown out because of Evans’ errors. Specifically in the third case the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that he had discriminated against black jurors.
Baran and her colleagues examined other cases he had prosecuted in his long career, analyzing jury rosters and rejections of potential jurors.
According to their research, Doug Evans used his power to reject would-be jurors 4.5 times as often with African-Americans as with white people.
Those findings will be presented when the US Supreme Court deliberates on the case.
“Doug Evans knows that there are a lot of problems with that case. That’s why he strikes black jurors,” said Ray Charles Carter, who defended Flowers in his last four trials.
“Black folks are more suspicious, because we have seen abuses in our family,” he said. “We have been victims too often.”
The Supreme Court in Washington is expected to render its decision by June this year, but Baran said that even if it rules in Flowers’ favor, it will only highlight the problem rather than remedy it.
“Still Curtis could be tried again by the same prosecutor and the prosecutor could attempt the same thing again,” she said.
Flowers’ defense lawyer said “Evans believes he has to win this case… that a loss in this case would harm his legacy and standing in the community.”
White House lawyers were desperate not to talk about Rudy Giuliani — or Trump’s other conspiracy theories: CNN analyst
On Saturday, CNN analyst Gloria Borger noted a key piece of the timeline that was conveniently missing from the defense presented by President Donald Trump's legal team: The involvement of Trump's private lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
"The one person that Jay Sekulow didn't mention is Rudy Giuliani, because this is Rudy Giuliani's theory of the game here," said Borger. "They were very careful not to bring up Rudy Giuliani because they know that he is not well regarded in the United States Senate, but if you again look at this summary of the transcript of the president's phone call, the president talks about CrowdStrike, he talks about a lot of things that went on. 'I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people, I would like to have you get to the bottom of it,' this whole nonsense, he talked about Bob Mueller and said a lot of it started with Ukraine."
Pompeo ridiculed by CNN panel for his ‘phony mock outrage’ response after being outed as a foul-mouthed bully
Responding to a statement from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued through the State Department accusing an NPR journalist of being "shameless" for going public with an encounter she had with him in his offices where he cursed at her, a CNN panel all but rolled their eyes at his "phony" outrage.
Speaking with host Anderson Cooper, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called out the blustery Pompeo as well as many Republicans who took "umbrage" at Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) mentioning a report that the Donald Trump would have their heads on "on a pike" if they crossed him.
Trump attorney Sekulow’s impeachment defense of president blown out of the water with Lindsey Graham statement
On Saturday, one of the biggest opening arguments made by President Donald Trump's legal team at the impeachment trial was that there was, in fact, a risk that Ukraine had meddled in U.S. elections.
"Mr. Schiff and his colleagues repeatedly told you that the intelligence community assessment that Russia was acting alone, responsible for the election interference, implying this somehow debunked the idea there might be in — you know, interference from other countries, including Ukraine," said Trump counsel Jay Sekulow. "This is basically what we call a straw man argument."
But MSNBC's Brian Williams knocked down this defense with a clip from none other than one of President Donald Trump's biggest allies: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).