Jackson calls for review of criminal defendants’ rights to jury proceedings

WASHINGTON (CN) — Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor split from their colleagues over criminal defendants’ rights to be present in jury proceedings, dissenting from the court’s decision on Monday to decline review of a Texas man’s appeal.

Gustavo Tijerina Sandoval was charged with capital murder for the killing of an off-duty border patrol officer during an attempted robbery. He was convicted and sentenced to death, but the jury who decided his case was in part chosen during an off-the-record process that he could not attend.

“The baseline is well established: A ‘defendant has a due process right to be present at a proceeding “whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge,"’” Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee wrote. “This court has also already determined that voir dire proceedings qualify as such a moment.”

Prospective jurors in a general jury pool cannot be excused without the presence of both parties in the case. Capital cases in Texas, however, operate under a different procedure. Trial judges in capital cases can order a special venire used in the winnowing of potential jurors. During this preliminary process, the judge has greater leeway to dismiss jurors than in other cases.

Neither Sandoval nor his attorneys were present during a preliminary proceeding where the judge explained the jury qualifications to prospective jurors in his case. Some of these proceedings took place off the record, leaving Sandoval with no way of knowing what information jurors could have been exposed to.

When the court returned to the record, Sandoval discovered the court misstated several reasons a juror could be disqualified. Several jurors were dismissed without Sandoval or his attorneys present. One juror also expressed discomfort with the case. The court did not inquire further into the juror’s discomfort or dismiss them.

Sandoval and his attorneys eventually joined the jury selection but appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, claiming his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated.

Jackson said it seemed self-evident to her that a defendant’s presence at the first court appearance of prospective jurors would impact the fulness of his defense against the charges.

“But here, without even the benefit of a full record of the exchanges between the trial court and prospective jurors, the TCCA held categorically that a defendant in Tijerina Sandoval’s position had no right to be present during the court’s preliminary assessment of the jury pool,” Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by Sotomayor, a Barack Obama appointee.

Jackson and Sotomayor disagreed with the court’s decision not to hear Sandoval’s petition, arguing it raised significant and cert-worthy questions. There were no other noted dissents to the court’s order.

Jackson said Texas’ distinction between jury procedures at different proceedings conflicted with a criminal defendant’s rights.

“The TCCA’s categorical distinction between a ‘preliminary inquiry’ into juror qualifications in the context of a special venire, on the one hand, and standard voir dire** proceedings, on the other, stands in deep tension with a criminal defendant’s ‘right to personal presence at all critical stages of the trial,’” Jackson wrote.

The argument that Sandoval couldn’t have gained anything by attending these proceedings, Jackson said, was proven incorrect considering the proceedings took place off the record.

“Because most of these proceedings took place off the record, there is no full account of what was said,” Jackson wrote. “But what is known of the facts here plainly demonstrates why Tijerina Sandoval’s presence might have mattered.”

Jackson said it was particularly concerning that Texas only employs these special processes in capital cases.

“In those circumstances, it is all the more likely that those prospective jurors who are called for a special venire prequalification process may have seen reporting on the case and formed opinions before trial,” Jackson said. “Such media coverage might also lead prospective jurors to reveal a ‘predisposition about the defendant’s culpability’ at the earliest opportunity — i.e., during the special venire proceedings.”

Jackson said the lower court’s finding that Sandoval was not entitled to be present at these proceedings conflicts with other state and federal court holdings. She said the court should have granted certiorari to resolve an issue of clear constitutional and practical significance.

Follow @KelseyReichmann Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social