When Does Kicking Black People Off Juries Cross a Constitutional Line? (employment, lawyer)
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.
The issue in this case is how did a man that was tried 6 times in a city with a 50/50 black white mix, have 0 black jurors on several trials. There seems to be way more than “happen to know the defendant” type stuff. The
Winona, the city in question, has a population of 5,482 people. It is very likely that everyone knew everyone else and just as likely that everyone knew the victims. Actually, in one case there was a black juror, and that trial found Flowers guilty.
But surely the case was moved for trial. I mean, SURELY they are not doing it over and over in Winona. But you never know.
FWIW, one of the victims was black; three were white.
The Thread title is WRONG ..... this case is not about "kicking black people off of juries" - it's about keeping black people from being on certain juries.
I've been kept off of a jury more than once because I was once in an auto accident with a police officer. It's called "peremptory challenges" because it happens BEFORE the Jury is selected.
Deliberately keeping black people off of a jury ONLY because the Defendant is Black -- deserves to be challenged in Court and all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Seems to me people get bumped from potential trials all the time. Why should blacks be excluded from the practice?
No one is saying they shouldn't. The issue in this case isn't that black potential jurors were removed, it is that every black potential juror was removed.
The only question a judge should ask is "do you personally know anyone from either side or do you feel there is a reason you could not rule only based upon the law"?
That's it. The first on the list are the jurors.
If that's your total litmus test for potential jurors, I would never be able to serve on a jury in some courts because I believe in jury nullification of immoral and/or unjust laws. Just because there is a law against an action or inaction does not make that action or inaction a crime. An element of any crime is there must be a specific victim. Society cannot be a victim because society cannot be called in to testify on how they were victimized by the action or inaction. If society were called to the stand, one person at a time, I am certain at least one member of society would admit that they were not a victim of a supposed crime in a victimless crime even though there was a law against the action or inaction.
Jury nullification is a fundamental right of the jury. SCOTUS has even said as much beginning with Georgia v Brailsford but many courts refuse to allow even the mention of jury nullification, claiming the jury is only permitted to decide on the facts of the case, not whether or not the law may be immoral or unjust.
In this case SCOTUS is right to hear the case. I'll be interested to hear both the majority decision as well as the dissent, if it isn't a unanimous decision.
Several times i have been told by a few defense attorneys that when they have a client who has a police officer as the prime witness against them. They like to put minorities, especially blacks on the jury because they have a tendency to distrust Police, and give their client a better chance at getting off. Its a game both sides play.
Ask O.J. Simpson if he's happy when it's the other way around.
They all knew they had won when the jury was picked........you could have shown a movie of the murder to that jury and they would have let him go...........
That case was about a different defendant. The SC ruled decades ago that it was unconstitutional to exclude people from serving on a jury based solely on race. The practical problem is knowing when an exclusions are based solely on race.
If the right guaranteed by the Constitution is a jury of your peers that may support the challenges. What does "peer" truly mean? It may well be the case that most blacks are simply not peers to certain defendants. Remember "peer" has a specific meaning beyond "fellow citizen"...or else the term "fellow citizen" could have been used. Or just "citizen". Right?
So what is a peer and can a black be a peer to a white or is there a fundamental inherent exclusivity related to race that prevents such a relationship?
I challenge the idea that "peer" is a term of enlargement. Current court policy is that "peer" is a "multicultural" and "big tent" word. But this view is in direct contradiction to its actual meaning.
No one is saying they shouldn't. The issue in this case isn't that black potential jurors were removed, it is that every black potential juror was removed.
It is as simple as this.I wonder how many white defendants were judged by a all back jury. We all know the answer to his question.
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.
