Jackson Dissents as Supreme Court Rejects Petition From Death Row Inmate

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on May 13 dissented as most of her fellow justices rejected a request from a death row inmate.

Gustavo Tijerina Sandoval sought the nation’s top court to review arguments against how potential jurors were gathered without his presence and when jury selection began. Mr. Sandoval, a Mexican native convicted of capital murder for killing an off-duty Border Patrol agent in 2014, claimed his constitutional rights to due process were violated by the unfolding of the jury selection process.

Lower courts determined that Mr. Sandoval’s rights were not violated, leading him to seek a Supreme Court ruling.

In a list issued on Monday without a signature, the request to review the lower court decisions, known as a writ of certiorari, was denied. This indicated that at least six justices decided not to entertain the request.

Justice Jackson, the sole justice appointed by President Joe Biden, expressed that she would have granted the writ.

The request pertained to how potential jurors were assembled for a “special venire” without the defendant’s presence.

Related Stories

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) stated that Mr. Sandoval did not have the right to be present for the special proceedings.

The appeals court emphasized that the defendants’ right to be present “is rooted to a large extent in the right to confrontation,” and the issue of whether Mr. Sandoval’s rights were violated revolved around whether the special proceedings were part of his trial “or otherwise had a reasonably substantial relation to his opportunity to defend himself.”

While there are distinctions between the special proceedings and the standard process for screening potential jurors, neither process necessitates the presence of a defendant, as per the court’s ruling. Both processes differ from preliminary examinations of jurors, a stage known as voir dire, according to the court.

Justice Jackson argued that the special proceedings are akin to voir dire, and therefore Mr. Sandoval’s absence rendered the proceedings unjust.

“To start, even before they arrived at the courthouse, the potential jurors in this case had already been informed of the parties’ identities, the allegations against Tijerina Sandoval, and the fact that the state sought the death penalty—critical facts about this case in particular,” she wrote. “Then, on the day they were brought in for questioning, the prospective jurors came before the judge, where they could react to that case-related information in the context of the court’s assessment of their qualifications and ability to serve. Texas’s special venire hearings thus shared many of the key qualities that make the defendant’s presence at voir dire proceedings constitutionally indispensable.”

Most of the proceedings were conducted off the record, but in one captured statement, a potential juror expressed feeling uncomfortable in the case.

“It is entirely possible that that particular juror was predisposed to look unfavorably at the facts of the case or at Tijerina Sandoval himself. But the defense could not follow up on that comment, since Tijerina Sandoval was not present for those prequalification proceedings and was thus presumably unaware of that remark,” Justice Jackson stated. “There is no evidence that the trial court informed Tijerina Sandoval of this panel member’s comment before voir dire. Nor is it clear whether that juror was ever asked to explain the reasons for the stated discomfort.”

Other courts have found that in some proceedings before the voir dire stage, defendants have the right to be present, the justice noted, including a different circuit court in the 1988 ruling in U.S. v. Bordallo.

“That means the lower courts diverge as to whether a criminal defendant has a due process right to attend proceedings like the qualification hearings here,” Justice Jackson said. “That debate involves an issue of clear constitutional and practical significance that this court should have granted certiorari to resolve. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”

Jennae Swiergula, senior counsel with the Texas Defender Service, who is representing Mr. Sandoval, told The Epoch Times in an email, “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court decided not to take up Mr. Tijerina Sandoval’s case and instead left in place a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision which allows Texas courts to proceed with a portion of jury selection in a defendant’s absence in capital cases.”

She added, “As Justice Jackson’s dissent makes clear, for a defendant’s trial to be fair, they must be a full participant in the process of selecting who will be on their jury.”

The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did not return a request for comment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by former President Barack Obama, joined the dissent. It’s uncertain if another justice was willing to entertain the request. Accepting a writ of certiorari necessitates at least four justices.