Miller-El v. Cockrell
- Decided
- February 25, 2003
- Docket
- 01-7662
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 27,550 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that it was clear error to fail to consider or discuss grounds asserted in the objection — People v. Beauvais (2017)
- holding that evaluation of the prosecutor’s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies peculiarly within the trial judge’s province — Rice v. White (2011)
- holding that credibility can be measured by, among other factors, how reasonable, or how probable, the State’s explanations are — Curtis Giovanni Flowers v. State of Mississippi (2017)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we once again examine when a state prisoner can appeal the denial or dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1986 two Dallas County assistant district attorneys used peremptory strikes to exclude 10 of the 11 African-Americans eligible to serve on the jury which tried petitioner Thomas Joe Miller-El. During the ensuing 17 years, petitioner has been unsuccessful in establishing, in either state or federal court, that his conviction and death sentence must be vacated because the jury selection procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause and our holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986). The claim now arises in a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. The procedures and standards applicable in the case are controlled by the habeas corpus statute codified at Title 28, chapter 153, of the United States Code, most recently amended in a substantial manner by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In the interest of finality AEDPA constrains a federal court’s power to disturb state-court convictions.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, after reviewing the evidence before the state trial court, determined that petitioner failed to establish a constitutional violation warranting habeas relief. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, concluding there was insufficient merit to the case, denied a certificate of appeal- [*327] ability (COA) from the District Court’s determination. The COA denial is the subject of our decision.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.