Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A convicted murderer appealed his sentence because a Spanish-only speaking prospect juror was dismissed from jury duty. He lost the appeal but the NM Supreme Court ruled that lack of English is not a reason to exclude jurors, it violates their constitutional rights, and they must be accommodated with translators.
Don't you have to be a citizen to serve on a jury? How can a citizen not speak English? So much for the claims that Hispanics are assimilating linguistically into our country.
New Mexico does have it in their state constitution. Written in 1911 and gave protection to Spanish only speakers.
The guy has good lawyers but I don't see that one dismissed juror would have made the difference regarding his conviction of bludgeoning a person to death and then committing armed robbery.
From the OP's link:
"on account of religion, race, language or color, or inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages ..."
Why not just decide during pre-trial in what language the trial will be conducted, and then select appropriate jurors - with appropriate limitations based on regional language use?
In New Mexico, a choice between English and Spanish would be appropriate.
Louisiana can have French as an option.
Neither can list Somali - that can be offered in Minnesota.
Instead, the New Mexico courts are free to waste taxpayer money on unnecessary translators.
Why not just decide during pre-trial in what language the trial will be conducted, and then select appropriate jurors - with appropriate limitations based on regional language use?
In New Mexico, a choice between English and Spanish would be appropriate.
Louisiana can have French as an option.
Neither can list Somali - that can be offered in Minnesota.
Instead, the New Mexico courts are free to waste taxpayer money on unnecessary translators.
I agree with your last statement. Yeah, let's just waste more taxpayer money providing translators to anyone who does not speak English or doesn't want to learn it.
As for having a trial in a foreign language I don't agree with that. The judge, jury and everyone else in the courtroom would have to know that language. Geez, this is an English speaking country and the fact that New Mexico has a large number of Hispanics should not have anything to do with it. They can't learn English like everyone else assuming that most of them are citizens of this country? Why do we keep pandering to these non-English speakers? Geez, or get off the pot. Sink or swim.
Why not just decide during pre-trial in what language the trial will be conducted, and then select appropriate jurors - with appropriate limitations based on regional language use?
In New Mexico, a choice between English and Spanish would be appropriate.
Louisiana can have French as an option.
Neither can list Somali - that can be offered in Minnesota.
Instead, the New Mexico courts are free to waste taxpayer money on unnecessary translators.
Deaf and blind folks serve on juries and they require assistance to do so. Speaking a different language shouldn't take one out of the pool.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
