Did the Louisiana Supreme Court err in failing to consider clear evidence of juror racial bias under Peña-Rodriguez in the extraordinary circumstances of this death-penalty case?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In this capital case, a young Black defendant with no prior criminal history was sentenced to death by an all-White jury for the murder of a young White woman. The defense mitigation case for life focused on Mr. Hoffman’s good character. The jury heard uncontradicted testimony from multiple witnesses that Mr. Hoffman had no prior criminal history or history of violence, did not drink or do drugs, had always been a kind, quiet and well-behaved child, and that this shocking crime was completely out of character. In post-conviction proceedings, the defendant obtained an affidavit from a member of the jury revealing that during deliberations the jury discussed Mr. Hoffman’s race, compared him to O.J. Simpson, believed that he “played the race card” to “get off,” speculated that he had an undisclosed criminal record, he was involved in drugs and gangs, and that they sentenced him to death to prevent him from killing again. Despite recognizing that the juror statements “suggest they held beliefs that may have rested on racial stereotypes” the Louisiana courts refused to consider this evidence of racial bias, declining to find it sufficient under Peria-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2016) to overcome Louisiana’s juror no-impeachment rule. The question presented is this: Did the Louisiana Supreme Court err in failing to consider clear evidence of juror racial bias under Pefia-Rodriguez in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case? Petitioner Jessie Hoffman respectfully requests that this Court issue a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court. i