What was your initial reaction to the James Craig Anderson case?

James Craig Anderson should not have died. Unfortunately, he simply was the victim of a society which as yet has not healed itself. He had a family, and by all accounts was an employed, law-abiding citizen. His flaw: Being an African-American, being an innocent victim enveloped in the clutches of robotic, mechanical racial hatred, the seeds of which were planted and nurtured by racist literature, demagoguery, and ignorance.

In the documentary, you say, “I could have been out there walking.” What did you mean by that?

I was trying to make a point. Racism, which is blind, is immune to positions of wealth, learning, intelligence, or even Christian principles. When I take off my robe and walk the streets, to unfamiliar observers I am simply an African-American, naked and unclothed with the armor of my office. Over my years on the bench here in Mississippi, I have presided over numerous matters involving race. I have recognized race hatred, by both African-Americans and whites. The race of the perpetrator does not matter.

[For more coverage of race, sign up here to have our Race/Related newsletter delivered weekly to your inbox.]

After the trial, some relatives of the defendants and one of their lawyers accused you of “reverse racism.” What did you think of this accusation?

This notion of “reverse discrimination” is one that has plagued racial progress. The term usually signifies apathy for the rights bestowed upon African-Americans, rights already enjoyed by most whites. But I said “usually signifies.” In situations where reverse discrimination actually does exist, it should not be tolerated. We should not tolerate reverse discrimination anymore than we should tolerate racism.

During the sentencing phase of the trial, you called Sarah Graves’s mother to the stand. And after the trial, you sat down with her and asked her to reflect on her prejudices. Why?