## Facts

- William Andrews, a Black man, was tried in Utah and sentenced to death.
- Andrews was convicted by a jury composed entirely of white men; the petition alleged the only Black prospective juror was removed by a prosecution peremptory strike.
- Many jurors were members of the Mormon Church, and the petitioners alleged church doctrine at the time treated Black people as inferior to white people.
- During a trial recess, jurors were found in possession of a napkin bearing a drawing of a Black man hanging from a gallows and the words “hang the [racial slur].”
- Defense counsel moved for a mistrial and requested an evidentiary hearing to determine who had seen the napkin, who created it, and whether it affected juror impartiality.
- The trial judge denied the mistrial and refused to conduct an evidentiary hearing, instead admonishing jurors to disregard the incident.
- Andrews pursued state and federal appeals and habeas proceedings, including requests to the Utah Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, and sought clemency; relief was denied.
- Two days before Andrews’s scheduled execution, a petition was filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging the United States violated the American Declaration’s protections of life, equality before the law, and a fair and impartial hearing.
- Andrews was executed two days after the petition was filed; the Commission proceeded to consider the merits and later issued Report No. 57/96.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition was admissible under the Commission’s procedures for complaints against OAS member states under the American Declaration.
2. Whether the United States violated Article XXVI of the American Declaration by failing to secure an impartial hearing when credible evidence of racial bias arose during jury deliberations and the trial court refused to investigate it.
3. Whether the United States violated Article II of the American Declaration by denying Andrews equality before the law through racially tainted jury proceedings and the refusal to provide a meaningful response to that bias.
4. Whether, in the context of a capital case culminating in execution, the failures tied to racial bias and impartiality implicated the Declaration’s protection of the right to life (Article I) as raised by the petitioners.
5. What remedial recommendations were appropriate given the execution had already occurred.

## Decision

- The Commission proceeded to analyze the petition under the American Declaration framework applicable to the United States as an OAS member state.
- On the merits, the Commission found that Andrews did not receive an impartial trial where there was evidence of racial bias and the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether jurors found the racist napkin or created it themselves, and whether it affected their judgment.
- The Commission concluded that the refusal to investigate or otherwise meaningfully address the racist material violated Andrews’s right to an impartial hearing under Article XXVI (including the heightened duty of care required in death-penalty cases).
- The Commission also found a violation of Article II’s equality guarantee, concluding the record described treatment inconsistent with equality before the law in light of the racial bias evidence and the lack of an effective judicial response.
- The Commission issued conclusions and recommendations directed to the United States consistent with its practice, addressing the violations found and the need for measures capable of providing redress and preventing similar violations in future capital proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man functions as a source of international obligations for OAS member states, including the United States, in Commission merits determinations.
- The right to a fair and impartial hearing requires courts to respond effectively to credible indications of juror bias; where racial hostility appears, a court must take steps capable of determining exposure, authorship, and effect on impartiality, rather than relying only on general admonitions.
- Equality before the law prohibits discriminatory treatment in criminal adjudication; racial bias affecting jury decision-making, and a state’s failure to investigate and remedy it, can constitute unequal protection and discriminatory denial of justice.
- In capital cases, states must apply especially rigorous safeguards to protect impartial adjudication because the penalty is irreversible.
- A state may incur international responsibility when domestic courts fail to provide procedures sufficient to identify and correct serious fairness defects, even where domestic appeals and post-conviction review have been pursued without relief.

## Conclusion

In *William Andrews v. United States*, the Inter-American Commission found that evidence of racial bias during a Utah capital trial—combined with the trial court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing or grant a mistrial—denied Andrews an impartial hearing and equality before the law under Articles XXVI and II of the American Declaration, warranting findings of international responsibility and recommendations notwithstanding that Andrews had already been executed.


William Andrews v. United States, Case 11139, Report No. 57/96, Inter-Am. Comm'n H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 570 (1997)