AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA

Resources

Home

Statement of Purpose

Current Action Alert ( sign up to receive AFA of PA Action Alerts

Pornography Fight

Pro-Life Issues

Race and Ethnicity cases

Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003) (3-0)

This was an appeal from a district court order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner (Williams), who was serving a term of life imprisonment in Pennsylvania for first-degree murder, argued that his right to an impartial jury was abridged because the state courts refused in post-trial proceedings to admit certain evidence of racial bias on the part of members of the jury.

In the state courts, the defendant had presented affidavits from a juror and a witness who had testified at trial. The juror’s affidavit stated:

[W]hen I was Juror No. 9 in the trial of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Ronald Williams and Raymond Williams ... I was called "a nigger lover" and other derogatory names by other members of the jury. Remarks were made to me such as "I hope your daughter marries one of them".... The jurors were given information by an alternate juror who was told by [the] Sheriff ... that the "men were wanted in other states and if we don't get them another state would" and "that Raymond [Williams, Appellant's brother and co-defendant] was going to die anyway as he shot and crippled a man for life in Michigan. The man lived and was able and willing to testify against Raymond, so his black ass was cooked anyway."

The witness’ affidavit averred:

Subsequent to the proceedings in this case ... I ran into Juror Number Two (2) in the lobby of the Courthouse.... Upon seeing me he stated "All niggers do is cause trouble." I am not sure whether this was stated directly to me but it was stated for my benefit and loudly enough for me to hear and to get a rise out of me. During our confrontation he also stated, "I should go back where I came from."

Judge Alito authored the majority opinion reversing the district court, granting a writ of habeas corpus to the African-American prisoner after the state refused to hear testimony from the witness alleging juror bias against African-Americans. There were no cases clearly establishing just how far a state could go in excluding evidence of juror misconduct so it fell to Judge Alito and the court to determine if the exclusion of such evidence was contrary to the Constitution’s guarantee of a fair trial. Judge Alito found that it was, thereby safeguarding the rights of the African-American defendant to obtain a fair trial free of prejudiced jurors.

Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 2002) (2-1)

State inmates brought § 1983 action against corrections officials, alleging violations of the Free Exercise, Equal Protection, and Due Process Clauses. The district court granted officials' motions for summary judgment, and inmates appealed. Inmates were part of a prison gang called the Five Per Cent Nation. The gang had a history of violence in the New Jersey penal system and was designated a "security threat group" ("STG") under a prison policy where core members of groups so designated were transferred to a special unit for behavior modification.

The Five Percent was comprised of African Americans who have achieved “self-knowledge,” and is itself a racist gang. They "know the black man's true nature and that God is within man himself." Male members of the group were referred to as "Gods," female members are called "Earths," and the group often refered to itself as "The Nation of Gods and Earths." Its teachings included texts such as the Bible, the Koran, "The 120 Degrees," "Supreme Mathematics," and "Supreme Alphabet". These quasi-religious beliefs gave rise to the group’s Free Exercise claims, though there was no evidence that prison officials considered the group’s beliefs in making the decision to designate the group an STG.

The court’s opinion, per Judge Alito, was simply an exercise in balancing the penological interest in maintaining order and security in the prison with the prisoners’ constitutional rights (using Supreme Court guidelines). The dissent argued that the group was targeted because of its religious beliefs and concluded that the prison policy was unconstitutional. The majority, however, correctly noted that the policy was entirely neutral and did not in any way take religion into account. The principal disagreement was over whether the evidence of violence by the gang was sufficient to justify the group’s designation as an STG. This is a case, I think, where reasonable minds can disagree about the application of the law.

Judge Alito’s opinion here was, as always, highly respectful of the constitutional rights of the prisoners, exhaustively analyzing the free exercise claim. But in balancing these rights against the interests of the state in maintaining order and protecting the safety of other prisoners, he found the state was within constitutional bounds in imposing the restrictions.

U.S. v. Kithcart, 134 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 1998)

Facts: Police officer stopped, arrested and searched two black males in a black Nissan 300ZX after hearing report of three armed robberies by two black males in a black sports car in surrounding townships. The vehicle of the perpetrators was described as “a possible Z-28, possible Camaro.” Held: Officer lacked probable cause. Judge Alito, writing for the court, stated: “The mere fact that Kithcart is black and the perpetrators had been described as two black males is plainly insufficient. . . . In other words, armed with information that two black males driving a black sports car were believed to have committed three robberies in the area some relatively short time earlier, Officer Nelson could not justifiably arrest any African-American man who happened to drive by in any type of black sports car.”

Judge Alito remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the search could be justified on other grounds. A dissenting judge would not have remanded the case, but simply held for the individual on all grounds.

This case shows Judge Alito’s care in protecting the rights of all citizens from the abuse of governmental power even in the context of a criminal investigation.

Pemberty v. Beyer, 19 F.3d 857 (3d Cir. 1994), reh’g denied

This case involved a Batson challenge based on the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges against five jurors (three Latinos and two non-Latinos) who spoke Spanish. Judge Alito reversed a district court ruling in favor of the criminal defendants, holding that the prosecution’s reasons were not pretextual. The prosecutors were concerned that the jurors who spoke Spanish would not accept the translation of several taped conversations which took place in broken Spanish and were expected to be hotly contested. This was a legitimate, non-pretextual basis for exercise of the peremptory challenges.

The case once again shows Judge Alito’s tremendous analytical skills, painstakingly setting forth the facts and the law. Judge Alito carefully parsed the language of the seminal Supreme Court opinion in Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991). His decision reflects proper deference to the rule permitting peremptory challenges, which may only be overturned in extraordinary circumstances not present here.