Sotomayor Criticizes Prosecutor: Supreme Court Justice Clarifies Decision in "Racially Charged" Case

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor called out an assistant district attorney for racist language during a prosecution.

In a rare moment for the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer joined Sotomayor to issue a statement explaining why they had refused to hear a particular case, and clarifying that the refusal did not mean the case was handled appropriately.

"I write to dispel any doubt whether the court's denial of certiorari should be understood to signal our tolerance of a federal prosecutor's racially charged remark. It should not," wrote Sotomayor, referring to the Court's decision to let previous rulings of lower courts stand.

The case before the Court involved Charles Calhoun, an African American man arrested for cocaine possession in Texas. He claimed he was simply along for a ride with friends and didn't know they were going to buy drugs.

During the trial, the assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas asked the jury, "You've got African-Americans, you've got Hispanics, you've got a bag full of money. Does that tell you -- a light bulb doesn't go off in your head and say, 'This is a drug deal?'"

Calhoun's lawyer didn't object at this point during the trial, which the Court says was a mistake, but one they are not in a position to rectify. On the question of whether Calhoun's right to equal treatment under the law was violated by the U.S. attorney's question, Sotomayor says the answer is an unequivocal yes.

"By threatening to cultivate bias in the jury, it equally offends the defendant's right to an impartial jury," wrote Sotomayor. "Judge Frank put the point well: 'If government counsel in a criminal suit is allowed to inflame the jurors by irrelevantly arousing their deepest prejudices, the jury may become in his hands a lethal weapon directed against defendants who may be innocent. He should not be permitted to summon that thirteenth juror, prejudice.'"

Sotomayor goes on to detail some previous racist statements used to influence juries in the past, then reasserts that the Constitution prohibits such actions on the part of prosecutors.

But she concludes that Calhoun and his lawyers did not demonstrate that the abridgement of his civil rights resulted in a conviction that otherwise would not have occurred.

It seemed an unpleasant conclusion for her. "I hope," she wrote, "never to see a case like this again."