Whether the prosecution's peremptory jury strikes of African American jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause under Batson v. Kentucky, given evidence of systematic racial discrimination in jury selection

No question identified. : No. .-IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 2023 KHRKEKEKEKE REE KER EERE REE ER EER EERE ERR ERR ERR RE KER ERE REE REE REE EREREERE RUSSELL WILLIAM TUCKER Petitioner, Vv. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Respondent. KRRK KKK KKK KEKE KEKE KEK KEKE KEK RRR RE R ERR ERR ERR ERR ER RERRERREE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI KHRKEKEKEKE REE KER EERE REE ER EER EERE ERR ERR ERR RE KER ERE REE REE REE EREREERE TO THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT: 1. Petitioner, Russell William Tucker, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13(5), respectfully seeks a forty-five (45) day extension of time within which to file his petition for writ of certiorari in this Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. This application is submitted more than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled filing date for the Petition. The pertinent dates are: a. December 15, 2023: The Supreme Court of North Carolina denied Petitioner’s appeal in State v. Tucker, 895 S.E.2d 532 (2023). A copy of the opinion rejecting Petitioner's claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is attached. b. March 4, 2024: Deadline for seeking extension of time within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. c. March 14, 2024: Expiration of time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, unless extended. 2. The capital offense in this case occurred in 1994, and Petitioner, an African American man, was convicted of first-degree murder in the Superior Court of Forsyth County, North Carolina, in 1996. At trial, Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the prosecution’s strikes of five of five African American potential jurors, and he was sentenced to death by an all-white jury. 3. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the murder conviction and death sentence. State v. Tucker, 490 S.E.2d 559 (1997). This Court denied certiorari. Tucker v. North Carolina, 523 U.S. 1061 (1998). Petitioner did not raise a Batson claim on direct appeal. 4. Petitioner next filed a motion for post-conviction review in the Superior Court of Forsyth County. His first set of post-conviction attorneys were subsequently removed from the case after it was revealed that one of them had “deliberately sabotaged” his case. State v. Tucker, 545 S.E.2d 742, 742 (2000). 5. Petitioner received new post-conviction counsel, who were allowed to file a new motion for post-conviction review. On May 2, 2006, the Superior Court of Forsyth County denied relief and the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied certiorari. State v. Tucker, 651 S.E.2d 560 (2007). No Batson claim was raised in these state post-conviction proceedings. 6. On February 21, 2008, Mr. Tucker filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the federal district court for the Middle District of North Carolina. That petition was still pending when, on August 5, 2010, Mr. Tucker filed a postconviction motion seeking relief under a newly-enacted statute in North Carolina, the Racial Justice Act. On March 3, 2021, the federal court placed Petitioner’s federal habeas proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of his state court RJA claims. Mr. Tucker’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus remains pending. 7. On December 14, 2015, pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), the federal court appointed Martinez counsel to determine whether any claims had been defaulted in state court due to the ineffectiveness of Petitioner’s state postconviction counsel. Martinez counsel’s investigation uncovered the trial prosecutors’ jury selection notebook, which contained a document titled “Batson Justifications: Articulating Juror Negatives,” listing suggested reasons prosecutors could offer when their peremptory strikes were challenged under Batson. 8. On the basis of the Batson Justifications document as well a