Playing the race card in a capital murder case

SCOTUS stays execution of Georgia death row inmate amid claims of racial bias

His guilt is not contested, but only whether racial bias led a juror to favor the death penalty.

Put aside that, apparently, the juror was drunk when he made and signed the affidavit in question, making it legally invalid.

Put aside that, on the other hand, he seems to have been acquainted with the victims, contrary to his oath and requirements for eligibility to serve on such a jury.

Right here is the supposed evidence of invalidating bias, apparently.

According to his affidavit, Gattie said, "In my experience I have observed that there are two types of black people: 1. Black folks and 2. "N****rs."

Gattie went on to say in his affidavit, "I felt Tharpe, who wasn't in the 'good' black folks category in my book, should get the electric chair for what he did." 

As of 2001, Georgia carries out its executions by lethal injection.

"After studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls," Gattie said.

Gattie later said in a deposition that he did not intend to use the n-word as a racial slur, according to court documents.

Weeks after the interview, Tharpe's attorneys returned to Gattie's home and read his statements back to him, periodically stopping to ask him if the statements were accurate, court documents say.

Gattie had only one correction, but the rest of his statement stood, court documents filed by Tharpe's attorneys say. 

He signed the 1998 affidavit under oath.

"He basically admitted his criteria for deciding to sentence Mr. Tharpe to death had much more to do with his race than any of the facts of the crime," Kammer said.

No, he didn't.

It might be true, but he didn't say that or what means or entails that.

The man who said so is hoping you have problems with reading comprehension.

Anyway, the murder was in 1990, the trial in 1991, and the affidavit was taken in 1998.

The matter is just now being considered by the Supremes.

If the affidavit reveals bias it reveals there was bias in the man 7 years after the trial.

It does not and cannot reveal there was bias in him at the time of the trial.