No appeal for Texas death row inmate who murdered Uptown dentist

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM/CNN) – The U.S. Supreme Court on April 18 denied the appeal of Kristopher Love, a Black inmate on Texas death row who claimed that one of the jurors in his trial for murdering a dentist in Uptown Dallas was racially biased.

screen-shot-2018-10-29-at-4-19-59-pm.png
Kristopher Love

CBS 11 News


The ruling was 6-3 with the conservatives in the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by her liberal colleagues, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, dissented from the court’s order.

“When racial bias infects a jury in a capital case, it deprives a defendant of his right to an impartial tribunal in a life-or-death context,” Sotomayor wrote.

The majority of the court did not explain its reasoning.

The dispute arose in 2015, when Brenda Delgado hired Love to kill her ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend, Dr. Kendra Hatcher who was a popular pediatric dentist. Love was the gunman in a 3-person conspiracy to kill Hatcher. The plot came to light after officers arrested Crystal Cortes, who admitted to driving the getaway vehicle.

Love ultimately shot and killed Hatcher as she got out of her car in the parking garage at the Gables Park 17 high-rise apartment building. Love was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 2018.

more-kendra-hatcher.jpg
Photo of Uptown Dallas pediatric dentist Kendra Hatcher.

Family of Kendra Hatcher


At trial, during jury selection, prospective juror Zachary Niesman, who is White, was asked on his jury questionnaire: “Do you sometimes personally harbor bias against members of certain races or ethnic groups.” He replied “No.” The next question asked, “Do you believe that some races and / or ethnic groups tend to be more violent than others.” Niesman replied, “Yes, statistics show more violent crimes are committed by certain races. I believe in statistics.”

The trial judge permitted both sides to further question Niesman. The prospective juror told Love’s counsel that the statistics he referred to were those he had seen in news reports and criminology classes. But he reiterated that they did not reflect his personal feelings. The defense challenged Niesman’s ability to be an unbiased juror, but the trial judge allowed him to serve.

On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not address Love’s federal claim that he was denied a constitutional right to an impartial jury.

Instead, the court said that even if it assumed that the trial court made an error, Love could not show that he was harmed under state law. The court explained in part that Love had already been provided two extra opportunities to strike jurors for cause earlier in the proceeding.

In court papers, Texas argued that the trial judge was correct to allow Niesman to serve because he was “not racially biased.”

“It is well-settled under Texas law, as well as this Court’s precedent, that the trial judge’s ruling is entitled to great deference because it is based on her assessment of Niesman’s demeanor and credibility” during the jury selection process, lawyers for the state argued. They said that the record reflects that the trial court “conducted a diligent and thoughtful” process that took approximately eight weeks.

Sotomayor said the appeals court decision was “plainly erroneous.”

“Over time, we have endeavored to cleanse our jury system of racial bias,” she wrote and said the appeals court should have reviewed Love’s constitutional claim. “The task of reviewing the record to determine whether a juror was fair and impartial is challenging, but it must be undertaken, especially when a person’s life is on the line.”

Leave a Comment

Advertise