Tharpe v. Sellers

In 1991, Keith Tharpe was sentenced to death in Georgia for the murder of his estranged wife's sister, Jacquelin Freeman. Over two decades later, his attorneys obtained an affidavit from a juror who used a racial slur to describe Tharpe and expressed views that black people should receive the death penalty. Tharpe sought federal habeas relief, but the Eleventh Circuit ruled the claim was procedurally barred. On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating that the juror's racism had poisoned the verdict and that procedural rules should not foreclose review of such fundamental unfairness.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in a 6-3 decision, leaving in place the Eleventh Circuit's denial of relief. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, dissented.

Whether a death row inmate's claim of racial bias by a juror can be reviewed on the merits despite procedural default, and whether the biased statements violate the Sixth and Eighth Amendments.

The case highlighted deep concerns about racial discrimination in the administration of the death penalty. It sparked debate over whether procedural barriers should prevent courts from addressing clear racial bias, and it fueled advocacy for reforms in jury selection and post-conviction review.