WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review Lance Shockley’s death sentence in late March, despite misconduct by the jury’s foreman, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Shockley, a Missouri man sentenced to death for murdering a police officer, became the 36th person this year denied review by the court, said DPIC.

Death Penalty Information Center notes the jury foreman in Shockley’s case was removed before the sentencing because of evidence of serious bias, the conviction had been reached while the foreman was still part of the jury, and was allowed to stand.

Shockley’s attorney declined to question the foreman or other jurors about the misconduct, even when given the opportunity by the judge, as stated by DPIC.

DPIC explained Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, arguing the court should have resolved what they called a significant “circuit split” on appellate procedures that could affect prisoners nationwide.

The controversy arose during jury selection when a potential juror, who later became the foreman, mentioned he had self-published a book, and Shockley’s defense team did not follow up on this.

The controversy arose during jury selection when a potential juror, who later became the foreman, mentioned he had self-published a book, and Shockley’s defense team did not follow up on this, stated DPIC.

It was revealed after the jury’s guilty verdict that the book was a “fictionalized autobiography” about a violent revenge murder linked to a drunken-driving incident, noted DPIC, adding Shockley was accused of murdering a police officer who was investigating his role in a crash that killed a family member.

According to DPIC, the jury foreman even brought the book into reviews and showed it to other jurors before they voted to convict Shockley. When this came to light, the defense requested a mistrial, and the judge allowed the attorney to question the foreman and other jurors about the misconduct.

But the defense attorney, “inexplicably,” declined, said DPIC, and did not call any witnesses to support the motion.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center article, Justice Sotomayor wrote, “the trial court did not hear evidence regarding the foreperson’s alleged bias and misconduct or its effect on other jurors, some of whom later indicated that they had looked through the book.”

The judge removed the foreman but denied the mistrial, allowing the conviction to stand, added DPIC, adding that when the jury deadlocked on punishment, the judge imposed a death sentence himself—a process permitted in only two states.

The Death Penalty Information Center said Shockley later brought his claim to federal court. But after losing in district court, his appeal was denied by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had a single judge on the panel to approve the COA—an approach that Justice Sotomayor argued Congress intended, based on the wording of the statute.

Sotomayor, explained DPIC, noted differing interpretations of COA denial have “significant consequences” for those facing execution, often depriving indigent prisoners of legal counsel, and stressed the importance of judicial efficiency and fairness, arguing that if a COA petition results in divided opinions, resources are better used by directly considering the merits.

“It is difficult to see how an attorney’s decision not to call witnesses in support of a credible mistrial motion, when invited to do so by the presiding judge in a capital murder trial, could fail to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” said Sotomayor.

Legal analyst Jordan Rubin observed, said DPIC, that by rejecting Shockley’s appeal, the Court missed an opportunity to “clarify the rules and make the law uniform,” and, as a result, procedures for people on death row will continue to vary depending on where in the country they are tried.