Both my "physician's wife" better half and the undersigned were rejected from being jurors on 2 different medical liability cases in Long Island. Why should it be different for blacks? I have a simple and honest solution: let's remove the misleading "of your peers" expression from the "jury of your peers" phrase.
11
Of course, the case in the article had to be from the South. Would it be possible to include a similar case from the Northeast or other parts of the country? Is the article a complaint about the jury system in the South or the whole country?
5
My lone experience with jury duty was quite revealing. After being selected for a panel I sat in the box and watched as both lawyers (defense and prosecution) sought to pick a jury that they felt they could sway the most. The four best educated and most professionally successful panelists were the first ones kicked off, myself included. I found it quite ironic and it made me think that if God forbid, I was ever on trial, and actually innocent, I would request a trial by judge if it were available. Too much risk in what I suspect is a usually less educated and yes, less intellectually capable jury.
13
NYT are you insinuating that this 18 year old man was innocent? If the case was flimsy and he was sentenced to death, that is certainly an injustice and should be addressed as an extreme flaw within our justice system first and foremost. You are muddling the issue by bringing in potential race issues before we even know if he was wrongly convicted.
13
There are far too few in the general population in the U.S. who can be unbiased toward either the victim or the accused. What we need in our judicial system is a jury of objective individuals who listen to the facts presented by attorneys...who do not see gender, race, religion, or any particular characteristics concerning the case. I think the only way to achieve this is to select our juries from retired or active judges, or professional jurists, who are trained to only hear the evidence, and only base their verdict on an objective analysis of the facts. A strict overseeing of these individuals to prevent any corruption for profit would be a necessity. Our jury system at this time can often be manipulated by attorneys who rely on an emotional element in the jury's judgement.
4
On Excluding Blacks From Juries: The Supreme Court might want to broaden the scope to "excluding any class, gender, group" of potential juries because they have a direct connection to the subject of the trial.
My case involved "Excluding EDUCATED people from the jury". In 2001 I was fired from my 12 years teaching job as a science teacher in NY public schools. My firing involved teaching a scientific subject dealing with Genetics, "Polygenic Inheritance", one of the exceptions to Mendel's laws. During a summer school assignment, a science supervisor who did not understand the subject and would not even check the text book because a teacher originally from Africa (she accused me of teaching "African science") taught something different than what she believed was correct. So she promised that my "career would suffer"... Indeed, before school re-opened in September, I was fired by mail. I sued pro-se in the district court in Manhattan. Though not a lawyer, I put together papers to oppose the city lawyers' motion for dismissal of my case.
The district judge saw clearly between what the text book said, which I taught, and what the science supervisor believed was correct. So, the district judge ordered the case to trial on First Amendment rights in school setting and on discrimination.
During jury selection, in 2009, I watched as the city attorneys excluded from jury all college educated juries. So, I lost the case on trial, in Ngemi v. the NYC Board of Education.
My case involved "Excluding EDUCATED people from the jury". In 2001 I was fired from my 12 years teaching job as a science teacher in NY public schools. My firing involved teaching a scientific subject dealing with Genetics, "Polygenic Inheritance", one of the exceptions to Mendel's laws. During a summer school assignment, a science supervisor who did not understand the subject and would not even check the text book because a teacher originally from Africa (she accused me of teaching "African science") taught something different than what she believed was correct. So she promised that my "career would suffer"... Indeed, before school re-opened in September, I was fired by mail. I sued pro-se in the district court in Manhattan. Though not a lawyer, I put together papers to oppose the city lawyers' motion for dismissal of my case.
The district judge saw clearly between what the text book said, which I taught, and what the science supervisor believed was correct. So, the district judge ordered the case to trial on First Amendment rights in school setting and on discrimination.
During jury selection, in 2009, I watched as the city attorneys excluded from jury all college educated juries. So, I lost the case on trial, in Ngemi v. the NYC Board of Education.
24
How many Americans think the decision in the O.J. Simpson murder case was fair? That black jury wouldn't have convicted him if he admitted to killing.
4
In reading the comments here it is once again obvious that white bigotry and white racism are alive and well.
8
The contempt for Black Americans has no boundaries it exists tragically in very venue both public and private in America. Justice was never color blind in our nation especially in the criminal justice system.
Prosecutors in America are overwhelmingly White and quite often this singular fact is more significant in jury trials than the evidence.
The continued reality of Justice being stained by the stench of racism puts all Americans in peril and not just those on trial.
Prosecutors in America are overwhelmingly White and quite often this singular fact is more significant in jury trials than the evidence.
The continued reality of Justice being stained by the stench of racism puts all Americans in peril and not just those on trial.
5
Some peremptory challenges can be based purely on how one presents oneself during voir dire. Poor posture, legs askew, quietly chewing gum, fidgeting, etc., are all noticed and deemed unprofessional.
Justice is [supposed to be] blind. Let's do our best to keep it bipartisan and Lady Liberty from slouching.
Justice is [supposed to be] blind. Let's do our best to keep it bipartisan and Lady Liberty from slouching.
6
The OJ Simpson jury had 9 blacks, 2 whites, and 1 hispanic. Both whites and blacks are racists in America.
6
I'm white and have a Deep South southern accent. I worked as a federal prosecutor in Detroit for a number of years and I never, ever, ever took a black juror off with a peremptory strike. I decided I never would and then I stuck to it. I've been around black people all my life there is no reason to strike anybody for the color of their skin.
14
Yet we wonder why there is a Black Lives Matter movement! Denial in not a river in Africa. When they complain that they are not being treated fairly we tell them suck it up and stop whining because there are other places a lot worse. Unreal!! When they say stop shooting unarmed blacks we tell them blacks kill blacks. if you really want to make that argument. How thinking about two world wars and the body count there? If I am not mistaken that was mainly one race killing each other. In the world of denial where we seem very comfortable in we will say that was world wars so it doesn't count. I would say dead in war or dead in the street is still dead.
6
Interesting omission from this article: Timothy Tyrone Foster admitted striking the 79-year-old white woman with a log of firewood, raping her with a salad dressing bottle, and then murdering her. He confessed. He committed several heinous crimes against a defenseless elderly woman. In the words of our next President, "What difference, at this point, would it make?" Notice that the Times is not arguing that the jury got it wrong. They are mired in facts that serve to obfuscate the correct verdict. The jury, no matter their color, heard a man confess to raping and killing a 79-year old woman. They jury got it right. Why should it matter if they were all white, all Latino, all Asian, all Black, or all LGBT? If Lady Justice is blind and the truth and the correct verdict are the goal, then didn't this jury get it right? Shouldn't we applaud instead of vilify?
23
We are such a mess it's hard to comment on anything without sounding "racist". Racism is found in blacks when they make decisions as well as whites when they make decisions. The OJ Simpson trail has been researched well, and it is well accepted as fact that he got off because he was black and the blacks wanted it that way as they were white victims who probably had it coming, and the police were against OJ. Realism is that many blacks hate whites and many whites hate blacks all for varied reasons. There is no getting around it, or fixing it as our systems are broke. Not just our court system, but our education system. Really we are never going to be race neutral until we are simply in all respects race neutral. Meaning it cannot and should not matter if you are or are not black or white in any circumstance. But it does, more so than ever it seams especially to the blacks. All lives matter equally, so get over it.
7
I'm not in favor of manipulation racial composition of juries, but isn't there a blunter question: If prosecutors are picking and choosing jurors to favor their case, why isn't that an outrage irrespective of whether or not it's related to race?
4
I don't know why I expected more from the NYT or the (Obama liberals) commenters responding so inaccurately to this column.
Are any of you thinking of the slippery slope? So now the court of political correctness and unicorn chasing residents of Utopia want to step inside the minds of trial lawyers to limit instincts painfully learned from experience?
Great. You realize this won't stop with voir dire. Then a lawyer who asks off a case may be required to provide a race-neutral reason. I'm a Black attorney in Washington DC. Suppose I am in the wrong place at the wrong time and a judge who sees me in the courtroom, appoints me as counsel for an indigenous White supremacist. As a matter of principle, I cannot provide that person the level of zealous advocacy required for due process, so I file a motion to remove myself as counsel.
Suppose the liberal PC police cry foul, demand utopia social engineering and demand that I represent the White supremacist or provide a race neutral reason why I cannot? As a lawyer I cannot lie to the court. I also can't give the White supremacist the level of effort and loyalty required. So under the PC layperson lens, I lose my job, the White supremacist loses his case and then what? His friends come after me personally believing I threw the case and lost on purpose? I get sued for malpractice or disciplined by the court for ineffective counsel? Is that what you want? Trial attorneys are allowed to think and make decisions. Let us.
Are any of you thinking of the slippery slope? So now the court of political correctness and unicorn chasing residents of Utopia want to step inside the minds of trial lawyers to limit instincts painfully learned from experience?
Great. You realize this won't stop with voir dire. Then a lawyer who asks off a case may be required to provide a race-neutral reason. I'm a Black attorney in Washington DC. Suppose I am in the wrong place at the wrong time and a judge who sees me in the courtroom, appoints me as counsel for an indigenous White supremacist. As a matter of principle, I cannot provide that person the level of zealous advocacy required for due process, so I file a motion to remove myself as counsel.
Suppose the liberal PC police cry foul, demand utopia social engineering and demand that I represent the White supremacist or provide a race neutral reason why I cannot? As a lawyer I cannot lie to the court. I also can't give the White supremacist the level of effort and loyalty required. So under the PC layperson lens, I lose my job, the White supremacist loses his case and then what? His friends come after me personally believing I threw the case and lost on purpose? I get sued for malpractice or disciplined by the court for ineffective counsel? Is that what you want? Trial attorneys are allowed to think and make decisions. Let us.
5
I will share these final thoughts on this issue, which as a trial lawyer, galls me to no end. I don't have all the facts on the Foster trial from 1987. Colloquially speaking, and taking the crumbs the NYT provided, here's what I would do (keep in mind I'm Black).
This was a criminal trial. In trial practice, there are two basic standards of proof. In criminal trials the "standard" is proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the state (prosecutor) to prevail. When I was in law school, I memorized the phrase "eyelash from a peppercorn" to guide my thinking on criminal trials. This means something as small as an eyelash of doubt can in some jurisdictions mean a full acquittal (think Casey Anthony trial).
From a strategic standpoint, that makes a criminal prosecution an exercise in cat herding. And any wrong step could allow a murderer to go free.
So here we are. Highly charged situation, young Black kid accused of killing an elderly White woman. The state has to balance the needs of the state, and the victims and win.
What the Times Editorial Board refused to discuss was implicit bias. It works both ways. The prosecution's bias to err on the side of caution versus the potential juror with an axe to grind. So you make a judgment call. I would have done the same thing. The case has to rise and fall on the facts in the courtroom, not race problems happening outside of it. We're not living in the 1950s. A competent defense lawyer should be able to win without the race card.
This was a criminal trial. In trial practice, there are two basic standards of proof. In criminal trials the "standard" is proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the state (prosecutor) to prevail. When I was in law school, I memorized the phrase "eyelash from a peppercorn" to guide my thinking on criminal trials. This means something as small as an eyelash of doubt can in some jurisdictions mean a full acquittal (think Casey Anthony trial).
From a strategic standpoint, that makes a criminal prosecution an exercise in cat herding. And any wrong step could allow a murderer to go free.
So here we are. Highly charged situation, young Black kid accused of killing an elderly White woman. The state has to balance the needs of the state, and the victims and win.
What the Times Editorial Board refused to discuss was implicit bias. It works both ways. The prosecution's bias to err on the side of caution versus the potential juror with an axe to grind. So you make a judgment call. I would have done the same thing. The case has to rise and fall on the facts in the courtroom, not race problems happening outside of it. We're not living in the 1950s. A competent defense lawyer should be able to win without the race card.
19
Yes, another black grievance editorial from the Times. Might we expect an editorial on black JURY NULLIFICATION, the wide-spread practice of black jury members voting to acquit their fellow blacks no matter how overwhelming the evidence of guilt? This is happening in every big city in America.
15
I challenge the board to name one nation earth where blacks have a better life than they do in the USA. Name one nation on earth, ruled by blacks, where people enjoy more equality or have a more fairer society than the USA.
14
Try Canada and nearly every European country.
7
Well, even if true, that does not mean we shouldn't strive to do better. But here are two nations - Canada and the United Kingdom.
12
There's dozens of them. Right here in the Caribbean. I'm black, I live in one and I love my country, just like Americans love theirs. We build mosques on the same streets as Catholic churches and visit each other's holy buildings to learn more about each other, starting in primary school. We have holidays for Muslims, the Chinese and Hindus, along with Christians etc. Sure, we're not perfect, but is any country? I know it might be hard for you to accept so here's a few more: Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis etc. There's more than one there. Take your pick.
10
"Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case, Foster v. Chatman, to decide whether the prosecutors are telling the truth."
While it would not be surprising if some members of the current Court were to make such a determination, this is precisely what the Supreme Court is NOT supposed to do. Credibility is not their province - we leave that to trial judges or juries. By contrast and for example, the Court may well decide that a certain pattern of exclusion creates a rebuttable inference of improper use of challenges. Please be careful what you write.
While it would not be surprising if some members of the current Court were to make such a determination, this is precisely what the Supreme Court is NOT supposed to do. Credibility is not their province - we leave that to trial judges or juries. By contrast and for example, the Court may well decide that a certain pattern of exclusion creates a rebuttable inference of improper use of challenges. Please be careful what you write.
2
ON the flip side of this, I was recently on jury duty; it was a case of a young black man who was accused of killing a white officer. In the voir dire both the defense attorney and the prosecutor were exhaustive in trying to find a person of color who could say that he/she had no bias against a police officer. Days and days went by and I was finally dismissed so I never saw the end result.
7
What exactly is your point...? Are you making a criticism of the idea that black people are biased against police? Are you further suggesting that such a bias held by a black person is irrational? I mean, I just don't get where you're going. Perhaps you can post again and clarify?
2
I was called to jury service a year ago, and selected for a case involving minor charges against a black man. As I watched the jury selection, it was clear that the prosecutor wanted to exclude all minorities from the jury, and he did. Nevertheless, the all-white middle-and-upper-class jury was not snookered by the prosecution arguments, and found the defendant innocent.
Exclusion of blacks and minorities is alive and doing all too well throughout the country.
Exclusion of blacks and minorities is alive and doing all too well throughout the country.
10
I won't hold my breath waiting for the Times analysis to reveal that black jurors overwhelmingly refuse to convict black defendants.
13
This Black attorney thanks you for saying that, Mark.
Absolutely spot on.
Absolutely spot on.
6
Be careful... I'd hate for you to collapse and fall down due to the weight of all the evidence of such a claim that you're carrying around.
3
Two other aspects of this issue to note:
1) the willingness of judges to accept nonsensical albeit "facially race-neutral" explanations from prosecutors justifying their exclusion of black jurors -- perhaps out of a desire not to offend a prosecutor they see daily. In one St. Louis county trial, the prosecutor denied excluding a juror based on race, but instead did so because the juror was (1) female, and (2) black. The trial judge said no prima facie case of improper exclusion appeared (the prosecutor shortly thereafter became an Assistant U.S. Attorney). Many assistant prosecutors from St. Louis County, which has produced the highest number of appellate reversals for race-based jury strikes among Missouri state trial courts, become state JUDGES. The problem is less with peremptory strikes than with blindness (unconscious or otherwise) to circumstances exposing the pretext in a prosecutor's "race-neutral" reasons.
(2) the impact on the civic life of the black jurors excluded. Constitutional scholars cite jury duty as a preeminent hallmark of civic participation, second only to voting. Yet Missouri prosecutors reacted to Batson with a scheme of running arrest records of black jurors and citing any failure to mention a prior arrest when asked about prior problems with police as proof of juror deception (no matter how many decades ago the arrest occurred). Thus, racial disparity in traffic and citizen stops by Missouri police further infects the justice system.
1) the willingness of judges to accept nonsensical albeit "facially race-neutral" explanations from prosecutors justifying their exclusion of black jurors -- perhaps out of a desire not to offend a prosecutor they see daily. In one St. Louis county trial, the prosecutor denied excluding a juror based on race, but instead did so because the juror was (1) female, and (2) black. The trial judge said no prima facie case of improper exclusion appeared (the prosecutor shortly thereafter became an Assistant U.S. Attorney). Many assistant prosecutors from St. Louis County, which has produced the highest number of appellate reversals for race-based jury strikes among Missouri state trial courts, become state JUDGES. The problem is less with peremptory strikes than with blindness (unconscious or otherwise) to circumstances exposing the pretext in a prosecutor's "race-neutral" reasons.
(2) the impact on the civic life of the black jurors excluded. Constitutional scholars cite jury duty as a preeminent hallmark of civic participation, second only to voting. Yet Missouri prosecutors reacted to Batson with a scheme of running arrest records of black jurors and citing any failure to mention a prior arrest when asked about prior problems with police as proof of juror deception (no matter how many decades ago the arrest occurred). Thus, racial disparity in traffic and citizen stops by Missouri police further infects the justice system.
4
Well perhaps as the defense does they just want to get people without something that might bias them. If they were really showing racial bias why would they leave an obvious trail, they could use some funny marks or other ways to identify jurors that they would prefer not to have on the jury. I wonder if defense people could pass the same type of analysis, perhaps they want the people who the DA does not want. That would be racial bias would it not?
2
Good Grief...So what? Lawyer are advocates for, and only for, their clients and the objective here is to WIN the jury's verdict. Lawyers and their consultants (had better) should always strive to select jury members they believe will give them their verdict, and the heck with being politically correct about doing so.
Behind all the flowery rhetoric about 'Truth' and the glowing prose about 'Justice' and 'the Rights of'...whomever, lies an unspoken, hidden and ugly truth; a jury trial has little to do with 'Justice' and nothing at all to do with 'Truth.' It's a very serious debating match, with a whole lot more on the line than just the case at hand, between two opponents versed in the art of oratory persuasion who are both very keen to succeed...and the Best Spin wins. If that served 'Justice', well, well, well. And if not, oh well.
There have just been too many media stories over the years of judicial misconduct, incompetence, wrongdoing, etc, etc, with odorous hubris, political favoritism and stinky narcissism blended in to hold unfailing faith in our judicial (how much justice can you afford?) system ...and I've served "jury duty" more than once.
Behind all the flowery rhetoric about 'Truth' and the glowing prose about 'Justice' and 'the Rights of'...whomever, lies an unspoken, hidden and ugly truth; a jury trial has little to do with 'Justice' and nothing at all to do with 'Truth.' It's a very serious debating match, with a whole lot more on the line than just the case at hand, between two opponents versed in the art of oratory persuasion who are both very keen to succeed...and the Best Spin wins. If that served 'Justice', well, well, well. And if not, oh well.
There have just been too many media stories over the years of judicial misconduct, incompetence, wrongdoing, etc, etc, with odorous hubris, political favoritism and stinky narcissism blended in to hold unfailing faith in our judicial (how much justice can you afford?) system ...and I've served "jury duty" more than once.
6
Yet another reason I will never serve on a jury.
1
So now we are supposed to be extra careful when the juror being eliminated is a minority, or is this only pertaining to Blacks?
"Judge, the prosecution would like to eliminate jurors 3, 7, and 9."
"But Judge, juror 3 is Black!"
Now, I'm unclear where we are going from here. Seems to me that racial reasons for not excluding jurors is going to wear out other reasons: religion, family life, income, career, education, and other reasons we want to matter.
There, I said it. All reasons matter, not just being black.
"Judge, the prosecution would like to eliminate jurors 3, 7, and 9."
"But Judge, juror 3 is Black!"
Now, I'm unclear where we are going from here. Seems to me that racial reasons for not excluding jurors is going to wear out other reasons: religion, family life, income, career, education, and other reasons we want to matter.
There, I said it. All reasons matter, not just being black.
5
My lawyer-colleagues suggest that trials--and the exercise of peremptory challenges--are a rough and tumble proposition where we rely on gut and instinct to tell us whom to pick and whom to strike. And that trials are less a search for truth than they are a sometimes a bloody contest. All true. But when you inject an element of racism, classism, ethnic group exclusion, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments' guarantees of fundamental fairness and a fair trial are implicated and lawyer's swagger and gut instinct are not enough to satisfy the Constitution. It can't just be a fight. It's got to be a fair fight.
1
It happens easily and so is the justification. On look at the person, and the decision is made. The questions are asked to complete a formality and the answers fall on deaf years especially when a Black is charged and the judgement has to be guilty. The entire judicial system is in cahoots so how can there be justice? That is in illusion for the Blacks.
1
Sadly, the case will come down to Kennedy. We already know that Roberts, alito, scalia and Thomas all think that racism is no longer an issue in the United States.
3
Like their attitude about "Global Climate Change", the editors of this paper LOVE topics that feature White vicitimization of black. Doesn't matter that it's made up, doesn't matter that it's phony.
Why do liberal Democrat progressives love to sow hatred where there is none?
Why do liberal Democrat progressives love to sow hatred where there is none?
4
Yeah, racial discrimination is entirely "phony", and only exists because the NYT writes about it. Thanks for clearing that up.
5
Gee-I wonder how Clarence Thomas will vote?
4
There is a saying: "If you are innocent, ask for a trail by judge. If you are guilty, ask for a trial by jury." It's not unusual for defense attorneys to exclude individuals who they see as too smart and therefore more likely to deal exclusively with the facts and to be less susceptible to emotional appeals.
It's not for the reasons the NYT suggests but I agree that peremptory challenges should be eliminated.
It's not for the reasons the NYT suggests but I agree that peremptory challenges should be eliminated.
3
As the OJ trial showed, it cuts both ways.
5
DC barrister and his colleagues can read people, body language and character? They must be right up there with Shakespeare, though I don't know how much Shakespeare relied on body language. If a person looks away from you when you speak with him, is he guilty or just shy or afraid based on past bad experiences? The reason to have racially representative juries is not to arrive at one outcome or another, but just NOT TO DISCRIMINATE against people - and draw fallacious conclusions about how they will behave - based on their race!
16
There are cases where a "racially representative" jury isn't possible. You are assuming a state of nature that doesn't exist in voir dire. We don't have Oprah, Gandhi, Pope John Paul, Albert Einstein, John Lennon, Jackie Robertson and Martin Luther King in that jury pool. We also don't have a heck of a lot of time at that point. So yes, snap judgments are made as a matter of legal strategy and mitigation of risk, not race.
If a potential juror doesn't make eye contact with me, but has no problem making eye contact with opposing counsel, that's something I will look at for a preemptory challenge. It just is.
"Past bad experiences" should not find their way into a present jury.
If a potential juror doesn't make eye contact with me, but has no problem making eye contact with opposing counsel, that's something I will look at for a preemptory challenge. It just is.
"Past bad experiences" should not find their way into a present jury.
5
As long as both sides have the "right" to exclude anyone they feel will be prejudicial to their case there is nothing wrong with the selection process.
14
There seem to be an awful lot of people lately negatively commenting on any news story on systemic racism in our schools, courts, businesses and government. Using the timeworn tools of "denial, dismissal, derision and derailment" to apparently prove that racism doesn't exist, these commentators instead confirm to me the persistence and virulence of its existence (especially as they seem to be the first to comment on these story). And they also remind me how far we all have to go in making our systems fair in the face of those who would cling to injustice and exclusion.
26
"There seem to be an awful lot of people lately negatively commenting on any news story on systemic racism in our schools, courts, businesses and government."
If I stated the same jury selection rules that apply to prosecutors should also apply to defense attorneys would you consider that "denial, dismissal, derision and derailment" ?
If I stated the same jury selection rules that apply to prosecutors should also apply to defense attorneys would you consider that "denial, dismissal, derision and derailment" ?
Try proving with objective evidence that there is much if any systemic racism in the US system. I bet you can't neither can the NYT.
Is this intended to be ironic? A simple Google search on employment data (for similarly qualified candidates), average incomes, life expectancies, health outcomes, housing, discrepancies in judicial sentencing (for similar crimes), suspension rates in schools (for similar offences) - any of these could show you that there is in fact a great deal of systemic racism in the US. But I suspect that all of that data would fail to convince you, since because you have never experienced it, it simply can't be real. This should surprise me, but sadly it doesn't.
4
As a Black attorney in Washington DC, appalled by the naïve, editorial board, I posit this:
Why can't the NYT Editorial Board use this forum to discuss WHY more Blacks are in front of juries during the Obama presidency, as opposed to wanting de-facto control over a trial lawyer's instincts, discretion and judgment in representing a client?
Why can't the NYT Editorial Board use this forum to discuss WHY more Blacks are in front of juries during the Obama presidency, as opposed to wanting de-facto control over a trial lawyer's instincts, discretion and judgment in representing a client?
6
DCBarrister - "WHY more Blacks are in front of juries during the Obama presidency,"
Do you as a black attorney actually believe that the color of the presidency determines the color and number of defendants? Do you believe that there should be less black defendants in front of juries since the president is black? Do think that's the way justice works?
Do you as a black attorney actually believe that the color of the presidency determines the color and number of defendants? Do you believe that there should be less black defendants in front of juries since the president is black? Do think that's the way justice works?
2
Because it might lead to awkwardness at meals throughout the Upper West Side.
2
Because it is simple, they commit more crimes that are easier to identify and arrest.
3
Will your publication ever run an article or editorial that does anything other than stand up for criminals?
12
A jury of your peers.
Merriam-Webster definition of Peer: one that is of equal standing with another : equal; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status.
Bias is human nature, there is no eliminating it; we call it instinct. There are some people you like and some you don't, not because of race but because of personality. That, too, becomes evident in the courtroom.
In relation to this topic, would prosecuting a case of black-on-black crime, would a mostly/all black jury be the most appropriate to hear the trial and, if found guilty, mete out justice?
Merriam-Webster definition of Peer: one that is of equal standing with another : equal; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status.
Bias is human nature, there is no eliminating it; we call it instinct. There are some people you like and some you don't, not because of race but because of personality. That, too, becomes evident in the courtroom.
In relation to this topic, would prosecuting a case of black-on-black crime, would a mostly/all black jury be the most appropriate to hear the trial and, if found guilty, mete out justice?
1
One prospective juror did not make enough eye contact. Another appeared nervous and confused. A third had a son who was close in age to the defendant. A fourth was involved with the Head Start program.
------------------------------------------------------
None of these rejections appear to be based on blackness of the person excluded. So, i cannot see how the Supreme court will overturn the guilty verdict because of tainted jury selected process.
Secondly, if a person juror is seen as potentially sympathetic to the defendant and to rationalize the murder leading to hung juries, prosecutors who are interested in favorable outcomes for the people are within their rights to exclude biased jurors, no matter their skin color.
------------------------------------------------------
None of these rejections appear to be based on blackness of the person excluded. So, i cannot see how the Supreme court will overturn the guilty verdict because of tainted jury selected process.
Secondly, if a person juror is seen as potentially sympathetic to the defendant and to rationalize the murder leading to hung juries, prosecutors who are interested in favorable outcomes for the people are within their rights to exclude biased jurors, no matter their skin color.
5
The point is that the ostensive bases of these rejections are pretexts.
1
Ok, since we’re playing the race card, let’s play it all the way.
How come you did not post statistics of Latins, Muslims, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, LBTG and women being booted off a jury because of their race, skin color, sex and so on?
Let’s be fair, if a claim will be made that a juror is dismissed because of skin color, then why stick to only one skin color?
Try investigating that. We cannot have a frank discussion about race in America so long as one race is always portrayed as the only victim or the only one that is superior.
How come you did not post statistics of Latins, Muslims, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, LBTG and women being booted off a jury because of their race, skin color, sex and so on?
Let’s be fair, if a claim will be made that a juror is dismissed because of skin color, then why stick to only one skin color?
Try investigating that. We cannot have a frank discussion about race in America so long as one race is always portrayed as the only victim or the only one that is superior.
11
I know of no organized efforts by LGBT, Women, East Europeans, or other groups you mentioned to fight against jury exclusion, and I seriously doubt if you know of any efforts either because they probably do not exist. A truly frank discussion that you say you want will acknowledge that not all groups suffer from the same problems, and that bringing up other groups in this instance is a transparent attempt to avoid acknowledging a clear pattern of discrimination.
As for one race always being seen as superior, are we supposed to ignore historical fact, and contemporary reality? One dark skinned president does not negate the inequality that marks the lives of the great majority of African Americans.
As for one race always being seen as superior, are we supposed to ignore historical fact, and contemporary reality? One dark skinned president does not negate the inequality that marks the lives of the great majority of African Americans.
3
And of course no frank discussion is required or beneficial. Apply the laws that we already have, that will work best. Talking only confirms the bias that whichever group has.
Why anyone would be surprised by this surprises me. This is just another byproduct of persecution of the poor and minorities in this country. Blacks especially are suffering from generational persecution and illiteracy going back at least 150 years. When you historically have the highest rates of poverty and lack of opportunity you will naturally have the highest per capita crime rate. Combine this with selective enforcement and prosecution along with most municipalities bolstering their budgets on those least able to defend themselves. It makes total sense that a prosecutor would want no part of blacks on a jury with a black defendant as they know other blacks and minorities will in many cases be sympathetic with the defendant. From the beginning of the process to the end of it the whole system is rigged against the poor and minorities who do not have the resources to defend themselves. To those who would disagree and say that the playing field is even, I understand your ignorance of what you will never have to suffer because of your race and affluence.
3
As a criminal defense attorney, I know too well the prosecutorial abuses that can occur during the jury selection process. Although excluding black jurors from juries is one of the most insidious "suspect" practices, some unscrupulous prosecutors (officers of the court bound to follow the ethical rules) may resort to a stealthy effort to manipulate the peremptory challenge system, in violation of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial, to deprive a defendant of a trial before his peers--whether he is black, white, Asian or otherwise a member of a protected class. In the case of an indigent defendant, knock off jurors perceived to come from poor neighborhoods. In the case of a Hispanic defendant, strike jurors who are Hispanic and might sympathize with the accused. The list goes on and on. The practice is abhorrent to everything we stand for. Let's hope the Supreme Court will give the Batson case some more "teeth" and put an end to this despicable practice.
7
Are your "peers" only those of your race, religion, national origin etc.? Or are they fellow citizens?
2
Gomez Rd - "In the case of a Hispanic defendant, strike jurors who are Hispanic and might sympathize with the accused."
A trial by jury is meant to determine innocence or guilt. Would it not also be "insidious" and downright WRONG for a juror to disregard the evidence because they "sympathize with the accused"?
A trial by jury is meant to determine innocence or guilt. Would it not also be "insidious" and downright WRONG for a juror to disregard the evidence because they "sympathize with the accused"?
2
I'm sure it happens -- more often than we know.
Here in NY I was going through the voir dire -- the judge asked me if I read a newspaper on a daily basis. "Yes." Which one?" "The New York Times." "How much of it do you read?" "90% of it -- unless it's baseball or tennis season, then all of it." The woman sitting next to me, "Do you read a newspaper ever day?" "Yes." which one? "The Star." "Ma'am -- that's a weekly." "Uh huh. It take me a week to read it."
I'm white. She was black. She got on the jury.
It was a white collar (wall street) crime.
Go figure.
Here in NY I was going through the voir dire -- the judge asked me if I read a newspaper on a daily basis. "Yes." Which one?" "The New York Times." "How much of it do you read?" "90% of it -- unless it's baseball or tennis season, then all of it." The woman sitting next to me, "Do you read a newspaper ever day?" "Yes." which one? "The Star." "Ma'am -- that's a weekly." "Uh huh. It take me a week to read it."
I'm white. She was black. She got on the jury.
It was a white collar (wall street) crime.
Go figure.
12
Easy to figure, objective people are not wanted on juries by the defense, no matter the issue.
5
This is how the 'litigation game' is played, in criminal and civil court. Each side wants to win, and they know what type of juror they want. Criminal prosecutors want jurors who are conservative, law abiding, follow the rules types, and those tend to be white males. Criminal defense attorneys want open minded, compassionate, independent thinking jurors who do not necessarily follow authority.
These are the people that most attorneys, and judges, do not want on their juries: individuals who are hard of hearing, who can not sit for long periods of time, those who have an axe to grind against one or both parties.
Generally, lawyers do not want other lawyers on their juries. I was called to serve for jury duty many years ago, called onto the initial panel. The civil defense attorney used one of his three pre-emptive strikes to strike me from the panel. I suspect he had a weak case and knew that I would figure that out.
Yes, many attorneys, particularly prosecutors who are prosecuting black defendants do not want blacks on juries. This is not news - it is as old as the criminal defense system. This is how the litigation game is played - each attorney has a profile in mind, and there are many types of people each will not want on their jury - based on race, religion, sexual preference, sex, age, and other factors
These are the people that most attorneys, and judges, do not want on their juries: individuals who are hard of hearing, who can not sit for long periods of time, those who have an axe to grind against one or both parties.
Generally, lawyers do not want other lawyers on their juries. I was called to serve for jury duty many years ago, called onto the initial panel. The civil defense attorney used one of his three pre-emptive strikes to strike me from the panel. I suspect he had a weak case and knew that I would figure that out.
Yes, many attorneys, particularly prosecutors who are prosecuting black defendants do not want blacks on juries. This is not news - it is as old as the criminal defense system. This is how the litigation game is played - each attorney has a profile in mind, and there are many types of people each will not want on their jury - based on race, religion, sexual preference, sex, age, and other factors
5
Trial by jury is a remnant of older times when forensic science was in its infancy and an average man (women were not allowed to serve on juries) could determine guilt or innocence guided only by common sense. It is an anachronism today and should be abolished and supplanted by a panel of judges, as is the case in most civilized nations. Is excluding black jurors any more egregious than excluding educated and informed people? Can you expect a high-school dropout, whatever his or her color, to understand the intricacies of DNA testing when they don't know what DNA is? Can they accept the counter-intuitive fact that human memory is extremely unreliable and so most witness testimony is worthless? Justice today is a technically challenging profession and should be delivered by competent professionals, not by the under-educated and the overly emotional.
17
Any defendant that wants a jury trial can get one. Juries bring the citizen into the process to support justice when the system is biased.
Wow true rationale and logic. Spock would be proud.
1
Really?
What about the jury acquitted OJ Simpson?
And the jury acquitted George Zimmerman?
What about the jury acquitted OJ Simpson?
And the jury acquitted George Zimmerman?
12
This laughable, childish laity dismissal of the entire jury process by the Times Editorial Board is dangerously ignorant.
As a trial lawyer (who happens to be Black) I am painfully aware that there are already enough procedural hoops at pretrial to jump through, all while juggling your duty to the court and your client.
What the Editorial Board appears to demand is a glimpse into the mind of a trial lawyer--to ask us to go beyond what we should disclose as adversaries to the court, and open another avenue of adverse exploitation.
So I have a jury trial (I've had lots of them) and now I have to come up with an additional justification for using preemptory challenges that is also race-neutral. Suppose I can't? What advantage am I serving up on a platter for opposing counsel? There are thoughts, strategies and experienced nuance that we cultivate along the way that we use in preemptory challenges. Some major law firms have teams of jury analysts who pour over information and give trial lawyers even more insight as to why we should use a PC. That information should remain at the trial lawyer's discretion, less some sort of misconduct arise requiring disclosure of tactics, strategy and the mindset of a lawyer at trial. What you are asking is for de-facto control over what a trial lawyer thinks. I'm not willing to cede something so crucial to zealous advocacy and justice for the sake of petty political correctness.
As a trial lawyer (who happens to be Black) I am painfully aware that there are already enough procedural hoops at pretrial to jump through, all while juggling your duty to the court and your client.
What the Editorial Board appears to demand is a glimpse into the mind of a trial lawyer--to ask us to go beyond what we should disclose as adversaries to the court, and open another avenue of adverse exploitation.
So I have a jury trial (I've had lots of them) and now I have to come up with an additional justification for using preemptory challenges that is also race-neutral. Suppose I can't? What advantage am I serving up on a platter for opposing counsel? There are thoughts, strategies and experienced nuance that we cultivate along the way that we use in preemptory challenges. Some major law firms have teams of jury analysts who pour over information and give trial lawyers even more insight as to why we should use a PC. That information should remain at the trial lawyer's discretion, less some sort of misconduct arise requiring disclosure of tactics, strategy and the mindset of a lawyer at trial. What you are asking is for de-facto control over what a trial lawyer thinks. I'm not willing to cede something so crucial to zealous advocacy and justice for the sake of petty political correctness.
5
The U.S. justice system is an embarrassment. It is deeply racist, unfair, and corrupt. There are more prisoners in the U.S. penal system than any other country in the world, even thought we are only 5 percent of the world population.
People of color are disproportionately targeted for searches (without probable caused), more likely to be victims of police brutality, and more likely to be wrongfully convicted and receive excessive prison terms.
The profit-driven corporations involved in the system add another layer of corruption and unfairness to the system. Municipalities' propensity to target minority neighborhoods to extract fines and fees as a means of funding makes it even more predatory.
Now, having pointed out that base truth, regarding jurors, the whole think should not be that complicated. Any juror excluded from a jury pool based on her or his race is being subjected to unfair racial discrimination; a situation that contributes to the unfairness of the system. Period.
A man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and there should be no assumption made about that person's ability to reason, judge, make ethical decisions, based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender.
Only when race an ethnicity cease to be a factor in jury selection, from coast to coast, will we be able to say that the process is not racist and discriminatory.
People of color are disproportionately targeted for searches (without probable caused), more likely to be victims of police brutality, and more likely to be wrongfully convicted and receive excessive prison terms.
The profit-driven corporations involved in the system add another layer of corruption and unfairness to the system. Municipalities' propensity to target minority neighborhoods to extract fines and fees as a means of funding makes it even more predatory.
Now, having pointed out that base truth, regarding jurors, the whole think should not be that complicated. Any juror excluded from a jury pool based on her or his race is being subjected to unfair racial discrimination; a situation that contributes to the unfairness of the system. Period.
A man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and there should be no assumption made about that person's ability to reason, judge, make ethical decisions, based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender.
Only when race an ethnicity cease to be a factor in jury selection, from coast to coast, will we be able to say that the process is not racist and discriminatory.
3
Sometimes it is about how one thinks and their political ideas not race. Since 96% of blacks supported Obama, If I was defending someone for a crime that Obama publicly spoke out against as a political issue, I would consider eliminating some black people due to possible political bias. Finding twelve completely impartial people is seemingly impossible. The alternative of a completely random selection would lead to mostly hung juries.
Since the defense and the prosecution get the same number of peremptory challenges, the jury comes out about as fair as possible.
Since the defense and the prosecution get the same number of peremptory challenges, the jury comes out about as fair as possible.
1
The operative word in all this was "Georgia"!
4
I'm afraid the O.J. Simpson case rained it for many of us. It's hard to get it impartial jury that's for sure. But if you have a black person on trial and they've killed a white person and I was a prosecutor, forget it. What we need is honest prosecutors. In some cases the defendant is glaringly innocent and the prosecutor does everything he can, even cheat and hide evidence,to win that case.
White people have no problem finding a white guilty person for killing a black person. But in reverse I'm afraid it's not so. The New York Times can do back flips trying to convince people that this isn't so but it's all for not.
White people have no problem finding a white guilty person for killing a black person. But in reverse I'm afraid it's not so. The New York Times can do back flips trying to convince people that this isn't so but it's all for not.
4
The fact that you wrote that sentence (second to last) tells me you know nothing about the criminal justice system or the history (or current state) of race in the United States.
4
I'll ask the same question I raised in the Op-Ed piece about jury selection a couple of days ago. Why aren't jurors selected by random draws from the pool? That's the standard statisticians apply when drawing samples. (I'm leaving aside the issue of whether the pool itself might be biased.) Why isn't it the norm for jury selection? This question didn't generate any answers when I asked it earlier, but I'd really like to hear some replies particularly from attorneys. I'd just pull names out of a hat, give each side two peremptory challenges, and move along.
In the various cases that have before the Supreme Court on jury selection, has either side ever argued in favor of simple random selection?
In the various cases that have before the Supreme Court on jury selection, has either side ever argued in favor of simple random selection?
2
Prosecutors and defense attorneys are aligned in their resistance to randomly selected juries. Defense attorneys play the same games that prosecutors do during voir dire. Muckraking "activism" is only interested in one side of that reality.
1
Come on now, is anybody really surprised? This is a nationwide problem, and it's not merely a matter of racism in jury selection. The real problem is one unique to this country and viewed with unabashed horror by people in other nations of the 'free world' (Whatever THAT means these days): elected prosecutors. The idea may have been to make sure that the voters can remove an incompetent who lets obvious criminals go free, but what it's really led to, all too often, is a desire to engage in witch hunts for the sake of publicity. Just look at the current wave of trials of 'pill mill' doctors: In other countries,practitioners who were really all that negligent would have been, as the British say, 'struck off' (stripped of their licenses) early on. Instead, our guardians of the law wait to see if some patient - whose handling of the drugs can't be controlled by any doctor once they've got them - overdoses and dies, the better to lodge murder charges. The result? We've now got doctors who are not only scared to prescribe any controlled substances, but are even looking over their shoulders lest they be charged with fraud for writing medical EXCUSES.
And for those who think it's just 'errant' doctors they're after, have you heard of the 'school-to-prison pipeline'? Well, a lot of us know it all too well, especially if we're - surprise - black.
Well, folks, if you wanted a system where politics can determine your very freedom, you've got it. And vice verse.
And for those who think it's just 'errant' doctors they're after, have you heard of the 'school-to-prison pipeline'? Well, a lot of us know it all too well, especially if we're - surprise - black.
Well, folks, if you wanted a system where politics can determine your very freedom, you've got it. And vice verse.
1
"And justice for all....."
Really!?!
Really!?!
4
What about an intelligence test for juries? Oh, I forgot, anyone with brains avoids jury duty.
3
I've served in petit and grand juries in NY and most recently, in NJ, many times in the past 30-odd years.
My experience - especially in cases involving crimes - is the exact opposite of what this article states.
My experience - especially in cases involving crimes - is the exact opposite of what this article states.
4
It doesn't matter what your experience has been. This case is about one man who has been sitting on death row from his teens into middle age--possibly without just cause.
1
This well-intended, but painfully ignorant offering by the NY Times is a clear example of what happens when laypersons are operating well out of their depth.
Jury trials are bloodsport, much moreso than politics. As a trial lawyer or in my case, one that actually cares about what he's doing, you are 100 feet off the ground without a net, risking your career, reputation before the court and the community to engage justice. The highest stakes imaginable.
Criminal trials take that up several notches. There are innate skills we use during a trial, especially in voir dire that cannot and should not be open to anyone outside the attorney-client relationship. If you've been around long enough, there are things you recognize about potential jurors that save valuable time and resources. Why should I have to structure an entire jury trial around a juror I know will disrupt the process and hurt my client's chances
What this editorial gives short shrift to is the other way jurors can be challenged--by cause. Perhaps jury challenges for cause could undergo this politically correct filter.
Ultimately a trial lawyer must have the ability to think on our feet, to react and use whatever impulse is at our disposal to make judgment calls in the process of representing a client and more importantly, seeking justice. We have to be in a position to do that. The notion that preemptory challenges need regulation or to be abolished is a needless thumb on the scales of justice.
Jury trials are bloodsport, much moreso than politics. As a trial lawyer or in my case, one that actually cares about what he's doing, you are 100 feet off the ground without a net, risking your career, reputation before the court and the community to engage justice. The highest stakes imaginable.
Criminal trials take that up several notches. There are innate skills we use during a trial, especially in voir dire that cannot and should not be open to anyone outside the attorney-client relationship. If you've been around long enough, there are things you recognize about potential jurors that save valuable time and resources. Why should I have to structure an entire jury trial around a juror I know will disrupt the process and hurt my client's chances
What this editorial gives short shrift to is the other way jurors can be challenged--by cause. Perhaps jury challenges for cause could undergo this politically correct filter.
Ultimately a trial lawyer must have the ability to think on our feet, to react and use whatever impulse is at our disposal to make judgment calls in the process of representing a client and more importantly, seeking justice. We have to be in a position to do that. The notion that preemptory challenges need regulation or to be abolished is a needless thumb on the scales of justice.
7
Jurors should be chosen completely at random, with no pretrial scrutiny process. Neither the prosecution nor the defense ought to be allowed to stack the deck in any way. If a juror turns out to be completely unacceptable, it should be up to the judge to excuse them. Why are we even wasting time on this jury selection game?
6
What criteria would the judge use? I bet whatever it was would result in issues.
Suffice it to say, Jury selection and 'trial by jury' is the best mankind has been able to devise in umpteen thousands of years of trying to ensure truth and justice prevail.
It's not just black or other ethnic jurors who are excluded. I (who am white) served on three juries around 20 years ago. But the past three times I was called for jury duty, I was actually called to the box but eliminated after we were asked to list the publications we subscribe to. Others who replied, "Ladies Home Journal" or "Field and Stream" were retained, while I, who answered "America" (a Catholic magazine) and "The New Yorker," was dismissed. I guess they also don't want people who think deeply about (or perhaps have just been exposed to) issues.
7
Or, the prosecution wants a jury of less educated people, more easily manipulated.
3
My understanding of current case law etc. is that you have a right to a jury pool that is representative of the community. You do not have a right to a jury that is representative of that community.
3
Normally I would just laugh at the Times Editorial Board, but I am a trial lawyer, a Black attorney in Washington DC, and today's NYT Editorial Board offering borders on insanity.
Preemptory challenges for a trial attorney are like water for fish, and the key to any chance at justice. What the Editorial Board does not understand is a trial lawyer's solemn duty, to be a zealous advocate for our client. You know what? If I am trying a case and I see a Black juror or a juror of any race that I believe will hurt my case, I am using the preemptory challenge out of hand. Why? Because like many of my colleagues I can read people, body language, character...its what we are trained to do.
Look at the other side of this specious argument. Suppose trial lawyers were stripped of preemptory challenges, and a juror was selected who tainted the jury pool? Then what? Step away from the lawyering, we've got this.
One more quick word. The notion that a jury trial, or any trial is going to be perfect, every time is absurd. Each trial takes on a life of its own. So if a grievous error during open heart surgery happens, should we ban all open heart surgeries? If a defective car explodes on a highway, should we ban all cars? If you get a blister on your finger should you amputate to the shoulder?
Yes, there are issues in jury trials that in retrospect appear to be or could be wrong. But find me a better justice system. Ours legal system, warts and all is the envy of the world.
Preemptory challenges for a trial attorney are like water for fish, and the key to any chance at justice. What the Editorial Board does not understand is a trial lawyer's solemn duty, to be a zealous advocate for our client. You know what? If I am trying a case and I see a Black juror or a juror of any race that I believe will hurt my case, I am using the preemptory challenge out of hand. Why? Because like many of my colleagues I can read people, body language, character...its what we are trained to do.
Look at the other side of this specious argument. Suppose trial lawyers were stripped of preemptory challenges, and a juror was selected who tainted the jury pool? Then what? Step away from the lawyering, we've got this.
One more quick word. The notion that a jury trial, or any trial is going to be perfect, every time is absurd. Each trial takes on a life of its own. So if a grievous error during open heart surgery happens, should we ban all open heart surgeries? If a defective car explodes on a highway, should we ban all cars? If you get a blister on your finger should you amputate to the shoulder?
Yes, there are issues in jury trials that in retrospect appear to be or could be wrong. But find me a better justice system. Ours legal system, warts and all is the envy of the world.
19
"But find me a better justice system. Ours legal system, warts and all is the envy of the world."
Really? Are you saying that US courts, with their frequently erroneous convictions and the largest prison population in the history of the world, is the envy of all sorts of other countries with the same kinds of freedoms but much lower rates of wrongful conviction?
Really? Are you saying that US courts, with their frequently erroneous convictions and the largest prison population in the history of the world, is the envy of all sorts of other countries with the same kinds of freedoms but much lower rates of wrongful conviction?
4
I work as an expert witness in complex engineering and scientific cases throughout our country. My attorney clients will often ask me (based on the specific case) about the kind of jurors who would be receptive to my testimony.
With all due respect to the NY Times Editorial Board, many (if not all) of them have neither walked in your shoes nor mine. As a result, they can and will pontificate from now until tomorrow.
The key issue that they miss is beautifully summarized in the last paragraph of your post. It would behoove the NY Times Editorial Board to read with understanding what you have written.
With all due respect to the NY Times Editorial Board, many (if not all) of them have neither walked in your shoes nor mine. As a result, they can and will pontificate from now until tomorrow.
The key issue that they miss is beautifully summarized in the last paragraph of your post. It would behoove the NY Times Editorial Board to read with understanding what you have written.
3
You just made my point, Dave.
The countries with the "same kinds" of aspects of the American legal system have incorporated our practices to improve theirs, and it is extremely telling that you didn't name a country with a better legal system than America.
The countries with the "same kinds" of aspects of the American legal system have incorporated our practices to improve theirs, and it is extremely telling that you didn't name a country with a better legal system than America.
1
If members of a race in America who represent less then 13% of the US population yet commits 50% of total US homicides and among its male members at least half will have some sort of arrest record why would any sane lawyer have Blacks on the juries when it comes to prosecuting Black criminals for violent crimes. When they say a jury of one's peers they do not mean having thugs deciding the fate of another thug.
4
One would guess that you are implying that all blacks are thugs due to their skin color.
7
How do you know they're "thugs"?
Because they are Black?
Because they are Black?
6
My dear, uneducated fool:
13% of the population is not committing 50% of the crime.
They are simply being found guilty more often by a racist white jury, while plenty of white men and women are not found guilty for the SAME crime, by a jury of their white peers. Take 50 Black men and 50 White men who committed the same crime of murdering another white man. more of the Black men would be found guilty and sent away than the white ones, who simply appear to "look" more familiar to the jury, and can also often afford better lawyers. I hope to God you never get chosen to be on a jury. You would go in there with your disgusting bias of thinking every Black person on the jury is a thug. A thug is someone with YOUR mentality.
13% of the population is not committing 50% of the crime.
They are simply being found guilty more often by a racist white jury, while plenty of white men and women are not found guilty for the SAME crime, by a jury of their white peers. Take 50 Black men and 50 White men who committed the same crime of murdering another white man. more of the Black men would be found guilty and sent away than the white ones, who simply appear to "look" more familiar to the jury, and can also often afford better lawyers. I hope to God you never get chosen to be on a jury. You would go in there with your disgusting bias of thinking every Black person on the jury is a thug. A thug is someone with YOUR mentality.
6
I've served on 2 jury trials. Both in Detroit. One was against a boy who cut off the ear of a friend in a fight. He was white and found unanimously guilty by the jurors (1 black). The second involved a gang, where two stood trial for rape, a brutal rape. The blacks on the jury wouldn't convict even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The defendants were black. What I couldn't understand was that the victim was black. During discussions, the blacks felt that they didn't want to ruin the young men's lives. ?!!!
12
This is what happens when oppressed people get sick and tired of oppression. The world of the oppressed is lensed in a very different way. End oppression and you will end disparate world views and values. But don't presume that it's a problem of the oppressed. It is a problem directly linked to oppressors.
4
Glad I'm not black in this land of the free.
8
Chinese are excluded from juries in landlod tenant disputes in San Francisco. This was the opinion of an attorney I hired. The lawyer assigned by my insurance pushed for trial. My lawyer forced settlement; the reason is juries can be picked and my Chinese face with a picked jury would lose the case for me. The tenant was awarded $350 K for a mold complaint, not contested by my assigned lawyer. Had it gone to trial, I would hsve lost and be held responsible.
Tenant rights are strong in SF and Chinese own many rental units there. I learned, belatedly, there is a prejudice against Chinese landlords. For this fact, I have removed my rental unit from the market. I don't need the rental income and I don't need to fight a racial bias against me. But the city remains in dire need of rental units.
Tenant rights are strong in SF and Chinese own many rental units there. I learned, belatedly, there is a prejudice against Chinese landlords. For this fact, I have removed my rental unit from the market. I don't need the rental income and I don't need to fight a racial bias against me. But the city remains in dire need of rental units.
What's a landlord to do when the law actually support tenants? My suggestion is go into banking, they get to rip off the consumers and those peons have almost no protection - you'll like it a lot more.
3
No mention is given in this article of the statistics of race-based jury nullification, which bears on this issue, if only for the purpose explaining the motivation of prosecutors. Why?
5
Probably because there aren't many examples. Can anyone think of one other than OJ? I haven't seen one mentioned. I suspect there are examples of jury nullification in the situation of white jury, white defendant, black victim. Maybe we should look at those too, no?
2
Comments that presume bias by black jurors in favor of black defendants are inherently prejudicial, supremacist nonsense. Nobody worries that white people will let other white people go free. How long must we hear that our justice system is no better than its worst elements?
8
Maybe because we got used to watching the news, where a drug seller robs a store, gets into a fight with a cop, reaches for the cop's gun, and gets shot - and we get to hear how they are truly a church going boy who was going back to school and turning their life around. Such people cannot be trusted.
What is worse, is they get statues in their cities, and the cops get jail. This is not justice. And such people cannot be trusted with justice either.
What is worse, is they get statues in their cities, and the cops get jail. This is not justice. And such people cannot be trusted with justice either.
The system is purposely designed with checks and balances for this very reason. In any criminal trial the defense has exactly as many peremptory challenges at the prosecution - making it about as fair as it could possibly be. If the prosecution chooses to waste their peremptory challenges by excluding black jurors the defense can use the same tactics to "load" the panel WITH black jurors.
Much ado about nothing. Maybe it's a slow news day.
Much ado about nothing. Maybe it's a slow news day.
It's harder for defense to "load" a panel with black jurors when there are only a few black people in the jury pool. Getting rid of them is easy; finding more is not.
2
Not that it matters to the NYT Editorial Board, but did the guy murder the old lady or not? Does justice for the victim ever enter into the minds of the Editors?
10
The NYT only worries about justice when there is evidence that a black person may have been wrongfully convicted. When there is no evidence of injustice, then they argue the "process" was tainted.
To rephrase a different legal saying: "When the facts are in your favor, argue the facts. When the facts aren't in your favor, argue against the process."
To rephrase a different legal saying: "When the facts are in your favor, argue the facts. When the facts aren't in your favor, argue against the process."
1
"That Justice is a blind goddess
Is a thing to which we black are wise:
Her bandage hides two festering sores
That once perhaps were eyes."
Justice, by Langston Hughes
Is a thing to which we black are wise:
Her bandage hides two festering sores
That once perhaps were eyes."
Justice, by Langston Hughes
12
Perhaps the same scrutiny is due the preemptive challenges made by defense attorneys who attempt to stack the deck to favor guilty people. The criminal justice system is meant to protect the public. Prosecutors have an obligation to prosecute the guilty. They are too infrequently held to this standard. Nonetheless, it's their obligation. Defense attorneys are under no such obligation and knowingly defend guilty people all the time. As such, the real scrutiny should be on the practices of defense attorneys while heightened penalties for improper prosecution should be the emphasis.
5
Of course defense lawyers defend guilty people! They defend innocent people too. That's the point -- this is the best way, imperfect as it is, that we've figured out for telling which is which, a system going back hundreds of years. If guilty people don't get a good defense, no one is safe, not even you.
5
Another totally biased essay by the NYTimes. I offer you the infamous O.J. Simpson trial which was a farce. Take a look at your own state of NY and NY City if you want to see egregious examples of reverse bias!
11
You respond to statistics with an anecdote ?
11
I think prosecutors are afraid of another OJ decision.
7
This was going on way before OJ.
1
I can't claim "studies show", but I've read that black juries are notorious for ignoring evidence when the defendant is black. A rather vivid example comes to mind regarding black impartiality -- or lack thereof -- regarding a black defendant: the black/white reaction to the O.J. Simpson verdict. It appeared that nearly all blacks believed he was innocent.
10
I am black and I thought Simpson was guilty. Indeed, from conversations I have had with others, most Black Americans do not (and did not) believe Simpson was innocent. Rather, in his case, they saw an instance where something trumped race in the apportionment of justice -- money.
To a person, they cited examples where the judicial system had penalized blacks disproportionately, to include jury nullification that occurred with great frequency in the South. Few white Americans cite those countless examples as proof that whites "are notorious for ignor[ing] evidence when the defendant is [white]."
At the moment the verdict was rendered, you witnessed visceral reactions informed by injustices, both past and present.
To a person, they cited examples where the judicial system had penalized blacks disproportionately, to include jury nullification that occurred with great frequency in the South. Few white Americans cite those countless examples as proof that whites "are notorious for ignor[ing] evidence when the defendant is [white]."
At the moment the verdict was rendered, you witnessed visceral reactions informed by injustices, both past and present.
4
If prosecutors and defense lawyers can ask that potential jurors be excluded for cause, what's the need for peremptory challenges? An articulable and substantial reason can be weighed by the judge.
Any other reason for excusing a juror is just a lawyer trying to stack the deck to win. Trial results are too dependent upon lawyer gamesmanship and skill as it is. Let's get rid of peremptory challenges entirely and require both sides to present their cases to a representative jury.
Any other reason for excusing a juror is just a lawyer trying to stack the deck to win. Trial results are too dependent upon lawyer gamesmanship and skill as it is. Let's get rid of peremptory challenges entirely and require both sides to present their cases to a representative jury.
7
Because winning jury challenges for cause is about as easy as getting Barack Obama to stop taking selfies. Preemptory challenges are a critical tool because they give each side a chance to take their best shot at seating the best jury possible to prevail.
Jury trials are not the politically correct, social experiments the laity at the NYT is attempting to foist upon Times readers today.
Jury trials are not the politically correct, social experiments the laity at the NYT is attempting to foist upon Times readers today.
1
This just underscores that the incentives in our current system are all wrong, an adversarial system where the "winning" attorney gets brownie points and betters his/her career, thus, the incentive to stack the jury for a FAVORABLE rather than a JUST outcome. The defense lawyer has some say on who should be in the jury, but somehow we still get all-white juries. If we are not going to change the system in general, which I believe we should, then at least let the jury selection be done by more neutral parties - the attorneys have a chance to object but must give a GOOD reason for rejecting someone from the jury pool and the judge should have the final ruling in all cases.
6
Actually preemptory challenges during voir dire are how we as trial lawyers attempt to "unstack" the deck against our client(s). You've got it exactly backwards. And in most murder trials of note, the most a "winning" attorney gets is to keep his or her job.
2
People, please stop bringing up OJ Simpson trial as if that's the be all end all of Black defendant/Black jurors. Simpson was found not guilty for one simple reason - the prosecution badly mishandled their case. I was a NYC prosecutor during the trial and you know that was all we talked about. Ask a defendant to put on the glove that is being used to convict him? No discussion of domestic violence in the relationship? No expert testimony? Racist copy on the stand obviously not prepped well? They checked all the "How Not to Handle a Prosecution" boxes. If I was on that jury, I would have voted not guilty because the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I prosecuted many, many cases over my 7 years and I always had Blacks on my juries. Blacks are no more or less likely to convict than any other group when you, as a prosecutor, handle your case well. By well I mean that you are seeking justice and not a lynch mob. If you believe in your case and believe that you have the facts on your side your jury will believe it, too.
And, yes, I had a good record: over 60 convictions and 1 not guilty.
I prosecuted many, many cases over my 7 years and I always had Blacks on my juries. Blacks are no more or less likely to convict than any other group when you, as a prosecutor, handle your case well. By well I mean that you are seeking justice and not a lynch mob. If you believe in your case and believe that you have the facts on your side your jury will believe it, too.
And, yes, I had a good record: over 60 convictions and 1 not guilty.
70
Everybody knows you are so wrong since in that case OJ was proved completely guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. He was let off by a jury with no white men in it. Thats why O.J. Simpson got away with A gruesome double murder. Nobody botched that case. Johnnie Cochran wasn't that great of a lawyer. He was talking to a jury that wanted to be swayed.
"If the glove doesn't fit you got to acquit" is just stupid schoolyard gab and would have never worked with A white jury. Ito was to blame for letting that trail continue with no white men on it. That was an example that should never be duplicated.
"If the glove doesn't fit you got to acquit" is just stupid schoolyard gab and would have never worked with A white jury. Ito was to blame for letting that trail continue with no white men on it. That was an example that should never be duplicated.
3
Is the Times also suggesting that an all black jury could not dispense justice in a fair manner to a white defendant? Or does the racist argument only go one way?
27
One commenter "assumes his conclusion:"
"As long as the response is "race neutral", the strike is allowed by the courts."
Well, I guess that's the question here, isn't it? Was this challenge race-neutral or wasn't it? Based on the prosecutor's notes, it appears not.
On the other hand, prosecutors will learn from this that they need to scrub their notes more carefully. As several commenters have pointed out, both whites and blacks are peremptorily challenged on racial grounds. That's probably not going to change.
"As long as the response is "race neutral", the strike is allowed by the courts."
Well, I guess that's the question here, isn't it? Was this challenge race-neutral or wasn't it? Based on the prosecutor's notes, it appears not.
On the other hand, prosecutors will learn from this that they need to scrub their notes more carefully. As several commenters have pointed out, both whites and blacks are peremptorily challenged on racial grounds. That's probably not going to change.
1
So... a jury that INCLUDES African-Americans simply because they're black will be a better judge of the innocence or guilt of the defendent than one that EXCLUDES African-Americans simply because they're black? Or only when the defendent was black? How about when the defendent was white? Was poor? Was a repeat offender?...At some point, do we care about just getting a jury that just does a BETTER JOB?
18
What about Asians? Is their input as important?
The whole point of a jury is that they bring a variety of experiences and worldviews to the table, balancing out biases and raising points that others may not have seen. So, yes, including the African-American experience -- often very different from the white experience in many areas -- in jury decisions creates a stronger jury deliberation. Prosecutors may be unhappy with that, but maybe they'll work harder to make their good cases, and to drop cases that can only be won with underhanded racial tactics.
15
The whole point of a jury is to have a group of neutral third parties who can listen unbiasedly to the facts and arrive at the correct verdict. In this case, the defendant confessed to breaking into the 79-year-old victim's home, striking her across the head with a log of firewood, raping her with a salad dressing bottle, and murdering her. The jury, having reviewed the facts of the case and the confession of the accused, rendered the correct verdict of Guilty. You may be unhappy with that, because it came from a group of white people, but can you honestly say that these white people came to the wrong conclusion? I can't.
I was unable to detect your position - i.e., do you recommend eliminating peremptory challenges because they are subject to all sorts of discrimination, not just racial. I believe the requirement, in many cases, for unanimous verdicts requires that the parties have broad discretion to eliminate all sorts of outliers. Otherwise, we will be afflicted with a plethora of hung juries.
4
So are you arguing in favor of biased juries that deliver indefensible verdicts just to avoid the problem of hung juries? I'm trying to understand what you're willing to give up in favor of a supposedly more "efficient" system of justice. Would you favor reducing the unanimity criterion in favor something more like 80%? How about 51%?
Aren't hung juries more an indication of poor performance by the attorneys for both the prosecution and defense?
Aren't hung juries more an indication of poor performance by the attorneys for both the prosecution and defense?
1
Being tried by a jury of your peers is another utopian fantasy written by dreamy founding fathers after a couple glasses of port.
In practice, it doesn't work due to its easy manipulation by everyone involved, including prospective jurors: I didn't want to serve on a stacked all white jury against a black criminal defendant so I took the opportunity to truthfully rail against the district attorney for a case I was involved with. In the process I both tainted the seated jury which had to be dismissed and got myself excused for my bias against the D.A..
The next seated jury was likely also all white in all white Marin County, California.
I prefer the system here in France where corrupt jury systems are replaced by three judge panels. Not fool proof, but less prone to manipulation than juries.
In practice, it doesn't work due to its easy manipulation by everyone involved, including prospective jurors: I didn't want to serve on a stacked all white jury against a black criminal defendant so I took the opportunity to truthfully rail against the district attorney for a case I was involved with. In the process I both tainted the seated jury which had to be dismissed and got myself excused for my bias against the D.A..
The next seated jury was likely also all white in all white Marin County, California.
I prefer the system here in France where corrupt jury systems are replaced by three judge panels. Not fool proof, but less prone to manipulation than juries.
5
You may also have reintroduced a dangerous person into the community of which you imagine yourself to be defender and advocate.
Keep speaking truth to power.
Keep speaking truth to power.
Ted...what are you talking about? A new jury was formed to try the defendant...He may have been found guilty or not!
1
This is a two-way street. Given the concept of jury nullification, most notably demonstrated in the OJ Simpson trial, perhaps the prosecution is on to something. Johnny Cochran played the jury like a violin and used the subtle inference of "us vs. them" to let a murderer walk free.
12
Johnny Cochran was supposed to try to "let his client walk free. The prosecutions job was to stop him. They didn't. I guess they didn't think their evidence had to be that good to convict a black man.
4
You know this only became a two-way street in the 1980's, before that no white man was EVER convicted of murdering a black victim! (unless it was collateral damage from killing another white person). How many all-white juries in the south let known murders off scott free! How many southern defense attorney's played all-white juries like a fiddle with inference of "us vs. them" to let murderers walk free. One rich black idiot gets off and white folk are still butt-hurt, imagine how black people feel after centuries of all white juries letting klan rapist and murders off to rape and murder again!
5
Now. Let's ask the question "why?". Why would potential jurors who are black be rejected?
6
Because they acquit people who are hurting other African-Americans.
5
Google for a November 4, 1994 NYT article on the use of peremptory challenges to ensure a mostly black jury in the OJ Simpson case - there was only one white.
And how they cheered when he was acquited!
Yes, the abuse works both ways.
And how they cheered when he was acquited!
Yes, the abuse works both ways.
20
I guess the prosecution of OJ Simpson was not guilty of stacking the jury pool. With a nearly all black jury, white Americans were shocked when known murderer Orenthal Simpson was acquitted of his gruesome crimes and millions of African Americans cheered. The OJ trial revealed that bias in the courtroom is a two-way street. Later of course, OJ all but admitted to murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. How tragic that black bias prevented the families of OJ's victims from receiving justice for their loves one. How biased and unjust.
24
At the time there was a lot of contention around the OJ trial. In my office at work my black friends told me they knew he was guilty, it was obvious, but they thought he should be freed anyway as too many blacks had been convicted over the years for crimes they didn't commit. It was pay back. I never understood that then, but now I do. I see it every day in the NYTimes - blacks were slaves, it wasn't right, and now they need to be promoted through whatever means so that they are represented in the workforce based on their percentage in the community. UNLESS, we're talking about government jobs, where they are preferred - almost 40% of workers in the government are black. Nonsense. But since I don't want to be called a racist, I'll just shut up and get back to work.
I am white. I think it very likely that OJ Simpson was guilty. On the evidence presented at the trial, obviously mishandled by the prosecutor, I would have voted to acquit. They just didn't present the evidence and to convict you must present your case "beyond a reasonable doubt". They didn't.
4
As anyone who has ever sat on a jury can tell you, juries are very unrepresentative. Most working people don't want to sit on juries. To miss 6-8 days of work for an auto accident is just too much for most hard working Americans. You are left with young, unemployed people and retirees.
15
The juries that I have sat on, all criminal ones, have done their jobs with a great deal of sensitivity and a great deal of understanding, and a tremendous degree of responsibility.
And if you want to know the truth, the WORST witnesses for the prosecution were from the police who, quite literally, could not offer any evidence that wasn't obvious hear-say.
I have found juries most willing to set aside personal biases in the consideration of the factors that contribute to "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusions.
And if you want to know the truth, the WORST witnesses for the prosecution were from the police who, quite literally, could not offer any evidence that wasn't obvious hear-say.
I have found juries most willing to set aside personal biases in the consideration of the factors that contribute to "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusions.
2
I think that's entirely wrong. Since many companies - and I assume the city government - continue to pay an employee when he/she is on jury duty, it is not onerous, from an economic point of view - or from any other point of view - to serve on a jury. I remember one jury for which I was an alternate. One member was a political writer for Time Magazine, another worked for Little, Brown, a publisher. (I met her years later in a subway stop and she told me she had been inspired by jury duty to go to law school and was now clerking for the judge in our case!) Another worked for HBO. I worked for a news organization. And so on.... I remember the designer Betsy Johnson was excused after she said a number of her stores had been robbed (this was maybe in the 1980s). Also the dean of the CUNY law school - also a long time ago - was excused. I think it's more of a hardship for self-employed people to serve, but not for regular working people.
1
We are a corrupt racist society.
This is news?
This is news?
3
In practice, Batson basically gives prosecutors free rein to strike jurors on account of their race. If you like that idea, you should love Batson.
Some prosecutors claim that black jurors are excluded because of a positive bias re: black defendants.
If correct, we should also exclude non-black jurors because studies show 70% of Americans have a negative bias against black people.
Or maybe that is the point...
If correct, we should also exclude non-black jurors because studies show 70% of Americans have a negative bias against black people.
Or maybe that is the point...
22
The Readers' Picks opinions that blacks don't convict their own isn't quite accurate. I covered the trail of Susan Smith in Union, SC, where the the number of black jurors was proportionally high compared to their populaltion. The explanation from a lawyer and observer: Blacks are reluctant to sentence people to death no matter the crime. They'lll save Smith from the dealth penalty. And, the lawyer was right. Jurors I spoke to afterwards confirmed what I was told. Food for thought, as one of my teachers used to say.
8
That anecdote does not by any logical steps result in a conclusion which indicates that the opinion that blacks don't convict their own isn't accurate. It is a totally unrelated premise.
1
I've picked juries. There is guesswork and intuition. There is just a "feel." Then again, a lot of people who shouldn't be there are, and they judge forces us to use up our removals just to keep it moving.
In all of this uncertainty, there won't be a satisfactory solution to the blacks-on-a-jury unless we face a fundamental: No blacks on a jury is a problem, very jury, every time, no matter why.
So be arbitrary. We often are. If the area from which the jury is drawn is 1/3 black, then on every jury 4 of the 12 jurors must be black. If the area is some other percentage, then so must the jury be.
Yes, it is a quota. It is the only way this is going to work. Everything else is noise and avoiding the problem.
A black man in a black area must have blacks on the jury. A white defendant there ought to have some blacks too; they may help him, or they may have no sympathy for what he's done or why he did it, but they are the peers in that community in a way that we KNOW matters.
Face it. Race matters on a jury. If you need racially balanced juries, then say so, and do it.
In all of this uncertainty, there won't be a satisfactory solution to the blacks-on-a-jury unless we face a fundamental: No blacks on a jury is a problem, very jury, every time, no matter why.
So be arbitrary. We often are. If the area from which the jury is drawn is 1/3 black, then on every jury 4 of the 12 jurors must be black. If the area is some other percentage, then so must the jury be.
Yes, it is a quota. It is the only way this is going to work. Everything else is noise and avoiding the problem.
A black man in a black area must have blacks on the jury. A white defendant there ought to have some blacks too; they may help him, or they may have no sympathy for what he's done or why he did it, but they are the peers in that community in a way that we KNOW matters.
Face it. Race matters on a jury. If you need racially balanced juries, then say so, and do it.
38
Everything matters on a jury. Should an accused rapist be allowed to have 6 male jurors, even if those males may hold an opinion that the victim dressed in a manner that she was "asking for it"? Will religion be the next criterion?
4
I must disagree with the entire idea of 'picking' a jury. A jury should be 12 randomly selected individuals from the community, and the only exclusions should be if the juror has a direct connection with the defendant or the victim. This would eliminate any prejudice on the part of either the defense or the prosecution, and would have the side benefit of shortening the trial by a considerable amount.
5
Your comment indicates that you do not believe in the jury system. If we are to dictate juries by race or gender or religion or anything, we have lost the point.
I'd like to see some research on jury decisions by white juries versus black juries. There seems to be some question about blacks' refusing to judge fairly when the defendants is black.
If there is a pattern, as there is in their voting, that would obviously be a problem for prosecutors, just as it is a problem when white juries fail to convict.
If there is a pattern, as there is in their voting, that would obviously be a problem for prosecutors, just as it is a problem when white juries fail to convict.
12
here seems to be some question about blacks' refusing to judge fairly when the defendants is black
.two words: o.j.
.two words: o.j.
2
Seems to be a lot of question about WHITE'S refusing to judge fairly when the defendant is black or the victim is black.
3
Lots of commenters bring up the OJ case, which is about the most non-representative example of a jury trial in our history - total aberration. The jurors were sequestered, virtual prisoners themselves, for almost a year. In their place, who knows what any of us would end up thinking about the legitimacy of a system-turned-circus.
This article references a complex multifaceted area of the law/government in passing as its author conducts a racism shaming exercise based on biased and false assertions, it does us readers and our intelligence a disservice. This is not a scholarly article about peremptory challenges, it is paying lip service to it while using it as a vehicle to judge and condemn an entire legal system/branch of the government as racist. You could find a law review article that tells you more about the challenges and their history left out of this article that contradicts the author's conclusion, and any trial lawyer will tell you there are many situations where whites are excluded from juries based on their race. This article is just embarrassing, starts nowhere, goes nowhere, gives you 1% of the information, makes grandiose claims about race without coming close to supporting it.
32
This comment needs to be the first and only comment about this article.
3
Yes the New York Times prints way too many of these. But the worst one I ever read was last week "black children aren't safe anywhere."
It's important that the New York Times is the best news paper in the world. When it allows articles like this to be printed it's an injustice to the world of journalism.
It's important that the New York Times is the best news paper in the world. When it allows articles like this to be printed it's an injustice to the world of journalism.
1
South Africa ended jury trials because it's inclusion in the justice system was a sham. They knew it and did something about it. It's time the US did the same.
6
What would replace jury trials?
1
"an 18-year-old black man charged with killing a 79-year-old white woman named Queen Madge White."
The Editorial Board lost my confidence right there. They couldn't resist flagging the supposed symbolism of the victim's name. How utterly banal and reductive, as well as disrespectful of a person who was murdered (that is not in dispute, whoever the murderer may or may not have been). The EB would never had pounced so gleefully if a convicted murderer's name was "Black". Leaves names--and race--out of it and judge every murder trial on the evidence alone. As for juries, maybe end the practice of veto altogether.
The Editorial Board lost my confidence right there. They couldn't resist flagging the supposed symbolism of the victim's name. How utterly banal and reductive, as well as disrespectful of a person who was murdered (that is not in dispute, whoever the murderer may or may not have been). The EB would never had pounced so gleefully if a convicted murderer's name was "Black". Leaves names--and race--out of it and judge every murder trial on the evidence alone. As for juries, maybe end the practice of veto altogether.
19
Queen Madge is gone after a full life.
The important issue here is fairness toward Tyrone to return him quickly to his neighborhood so he can then become a productive member of his community
The important issue here is fairness toward Tyrone to return him quickly to his neighborhood so he can then become a productive member of his community
You didn't also write that they give the man's name, as well: "Timothy Tyrone Foster, an 18-year-old black man charged with killing a 79-year-old white woman named Queen Madge White."
They were just simply naming the people involved. The woman's name just happens to stand out.
They were just simply naming the people involved. The woman's name just happens to stand out.
1
Actually, the evidence against this man was astounding. He did murder this older woman in cold blood.
Under the heading on the main editorial page it read: "Far too many prosecutors exploit peremptory challenges to create racially unrepresentative juries and win convictions."
Win convictions. Win? Is a trial a game that you win or lose? Maybe that concept is the problem with our justice system. Prosecutors are not in a competition they are trying to get to justice. To prove a case against someone. To make sure the right person is held responsible for a crime. To treat criminal justice as some sort of a game or competition cheapens our society. It hurts the guilty and the innocent. It makes a mockery of our laws. It panders to our base emotions and creates an even more unequal society. Winning should not be important. Proving a case so no person of good character can deny it should be.
Win convictions. Win? Is a trial a game that you win or lose? Maybe that concept is the problem with our justice system. Prosecutors are not in a competition they are trying to get to justice. To prove a case against someone. To make sure the right person is held responsible for a crime. To treat criminal justice as some sort of a game or competition cheapens our society. It hurts the guilty and the innocent. It makes a mockery of our laws. It panders to our base emotions and creates an even more unequal society. Winning should not be important. Proving a case so no person of good character can deny it should be.
24
When prosecutors are elected convicting is in fact a win or lose game.
1
Unfortunately it is the success rate of prosecutors that 'matter' or so it would appear. Prosecutors often won't take cases when they don't feel they can 'win' the case and get a conviction. Some cases are chosen, others not. That isn't about justice, it's about reputation. It's part of the system that is inherently corrupted by human desire - whether it be simply for glory or to put a meal on the table.
9
Mark,
There certainly are prosecutors that care too much about wins and losses. But what harm is done by not prosecuting a losing case? Trying a defendant without hope of conviction is an abuse of the system that exposes a defendant to public scorn, great expense, and great distress for no good reason.
There certainly are prosecutors that care too much about wins and losses. But what harm is done by not prosecuting a losing case? Trying a defendant without hope of conviction is an abuse of the system that exposes a defendant to public scorn, great expense, and great distress for no good reason.
The worst part of all this seems to me to be that the strategy apparently is effective for getting the prosecutors what they want. That prosecutors lie and/or exploit their resources doesn't surprise me, that these particular lawyers got caught with evidence against them makes me hopeful that prosecutors more generally will worry more about being held accountable. Conservatives often seem not to consider that poor minority members might feel discouraged about their place in the mainstream and opt for alternatives, even when those alternatives are rife with their own problems, in order not to be forced to tie themselves into an untenable emotional pretzel; how can we expect people to be part of a society that requires them to be part of diminishing their own rights?
11
It's common knowledge among defense attorneys with any significant experience that most prosecutors will strike as many black jurors as they can in cases involving black defendants. The responses of prosecutors listed in this article are typical of the lame responses I encountered in making Batson challenges. As long as the response is "race neutral", the strike is allowed by the courts. Even boneheaded prosecutors can come up with race neutral excuses until the cows come home. The response doesn't have to make any sense. It only has to be race neutral. I would assume that Batson was intended as an attempt to provide black defendants with a jury of their peers. If so, it is an abject failure, a toothless tiger.
10
It seems the issue here is one of impartiality with the prosecution concerned that a black person will ignore evidence and testimony and refuse to convict. From some notes on here it seems as if there is at least anecdotal evidence that this is a real concern...perhaps an investigation into frequency of hung-juries precipitated by a single vote could be insightful?
11
No, no, no. That would require research and fact checking before developing an opinion and then writing an intelligent OpEd. Who has time for that anymore?
6
Or perhaps some research on whether white jurors are actually maintaining the affirmative "presumption of innocence" for black defendants -- or just letting the prosecution's case confirm their actual presumption that black people commit crimes. Sort of like the people who blamed Trayvon Martin for being shot instead of blaming the guy who shot him -- you know, "the black guy must've done something to deserve it" narrative.
1
Aside from citing mostly ancient history, this thin, slanted, poorly reasoned article is based on the false assumption that a black person can only be stricken for racial reasons. The 2012 survey of one North Carolina court involved capital cases. So a juror who cannot support the death penalty is out. So it is relevant that " Support for the death penalty is lowest among racial minorities (34% of blacks and 45% of Hispanics support it), women (49%), and Catholics (53%) per http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/national-polls-and-studies. So That's 66% of the pool right there.
23
That is the another problem. Why should people who abhor state murder not be allowed to take that view into the jury box? They are certainly part of the group of "peers".
18
You don't need to use up a peremptory no-reason-given challenge to exclude a person who states opposition to the death penalty. That's a challenge for cause.
4
Agreed, the ability to remove someone from jury because they won't go for the death penalty but might otherwise be an excellent critical thinker simply reduces the pool of potentially excellent jurors for something less.
1
These comments exhibit a profound lack of understanding of death penalty systems. Prosecutors are rewarded for winning and not for doing justice.
The murder that was committed was terrible.
Death penalty systems are supposed to prosecute the "worst of the worst". Instead we find so much prosecutorial misconduct.
And then despite all of this using DNA we find errors.
Race in American justice is very real. Read Arresting Citizenship along with other books documenting the racial history of justice in America.
Since Ferguson there has been a steady stream of "race in justice" articles starting with "zero tolerance" in New York City, police stops and arrests, the use of force, prosecutorial discretion. drug law bias, etc etc. Most recently when white people get addicted to heroin the police and prosecutors want compassion and drug treatment rather than 50 years in prison.
We need a National Commission on Crime and the Administration of Justice to deal with what is now termed the "Criminal Justice Complex". This is worse than the military industrial complex. It is not transparent or accountable. It is self sustaining and politically powerful.
This is not justice. It is about winning at the cost of justice.
Retired Army Officer, Vietnam, Bosnia and Haiti and criminologist.
The murder that was committed was terrible.
Death penalty systems are supposed to prosecute the "worst of the worst". Instead we find so much prosecutorial misconduct.
And then despite all of this using DNA we find errors.
Race in American justice is very real. Read Arresting Citizenship along with other books documenting the racial history of justice in America.
Since Ferguson there has been a steady stream of "race in justice" articles starting with "zero tolerance" in New York City, police stops and arrests, the use of force, prosecutorial discretion. drug law bias, etc etc. Most recently when white people get addicted to heroin the police and prosecutors want compassion and drug treatment rather than 50 years in prison.
We need a National Commission on Crime and the Administration of Justice to deal with what is now termed the "Criminal Justice Complex". This is worse than the military industrial complex. It is not transparent or accountable. It is self sustaining and politically powerful.
This is not justice. It is about winning at the cost of justice.
Retired Army Officer, Vietnam, Bosnia and Haiti and criminologist.
39
Come on. Both sides exclude jurors in any trial. The prosecution wants someone hard on crime. The defense wants someone leinent.
The fact is that the vast majority of blacks are sympathetic to other blacks. There is nothing wrong with that. Over 90% of blacks voted for Obama twice. It was their right. If 90% of whites voted white, Obama would never have been elected!
Over half of all blacks believe that the police are prejudiced against blacks. Why would a prosecutor ever want a person with that belief on their jury regardless of race?
If you were the prosecutor and had lost cases because a black refused to find another black guilty, what would you do? if you were a lawyer repesenting a black, would you favor a black over a white prospective juror? The fact is that they both do so most of the time.
You want to stop it. Don't let either side see the prospective juror during questioning. Of course, both sides can often tell the race by the voice and answers to some questions,
The fact is that the vast majority of blacks are sympathetic to other blacks. There is nothing wrong with that. Over 90% of blacks voted for Obama twice. It was their right. If 90% of whites voted white, Obama would never have been elected!
Over half of all blacks believe that the police are prejudiced against blacks. Why would a prosecutor ever want a person with that belief on their jury regardless of race?
If you were the prosecutor and had lost cases because a black refused to find another black guilty, what would you do? if you were a lawyer repesenting a black, would you favor a black over a white prospective juror? The fact is that they both do so most of the time.
You want to stop it. Don't let either side see the prospective juror during questioning. Of course, both sides can often tell the race by the voice and answers to some questions,
27
Yes, you're right. All blacks think the same. And the 90% that voted for Presidebt Obama were not voting for a candidate they believed in, but a black person who looked like them. And all those white voters who voted for white candidates (in every election since this country began) did so based on substance, not affinity. If only blacks could be as reasoned and rational as whites.
1
Thanks for commenting. Not all blacks and not all whites.
Democrats win about 88% of the Black vote in any given election. That Obama won a couple of percentage points more does not show that Blacks are more willing to vote for other Blacks, the difference simply isn't enough. It could be that a huge financial crisis struck the nation less than a month before the election, and many people of many races who would not have otherwise voted Democrat, did. And for the record, white people do vote white more than 90% of the time. It's called every other presidential election in history. Not to mention, Obama did not win the White vote in any age group except 18-29. Which doesn't show that White people liked Obama, it shows that young people liked Obama.
Let's not be naive. Let's recognize that the judicial system does not seek out justice, rather it seeks out wins. And let's recognize, that often times the pursuit of a win is at the expense of people of color.
Let's not be naive. Let's recognize that the judicial system does not seek out justice, rather it seeks out wins. And let's recognize, that often times the pursuit of a win is at the expense of people of color.
6
Ending peremptory challenges for both side seems like such an obviously answer to this problem, I don't know why you suggest they still provide value. If they were eliminated jurors who were suspect for any reason could still be removed by the judge for cause. It would have added benefits in speeding up jury selection and the pool required to seat a jury would be dramatically smaller. It would also eliminate the cottage industry of jury selection consultants in high profile cases.
16
The first poster missed a few essential points:
1) when a young Caucasian male is arrested for mass murder in the Aurora or Charleston shootings, he gets the full benefit of the best possible defense and a prosecution that is scrupulously careful to make no mistakes. But in the described case, the accused received none of that and was virtually peremptorily sentenced to death.
2) The prosecution cheated and knew it cheated, and lied in followups about cheating. Just "knowing" the accused is guilty doesn't ever justify the prosecution cheating.
3) Did you know that for the first 300 years of our history, no Caucasian was ever executed for the murder of a non-Caucasian person, unless it was "collateral damage" to the murder of a Caucasian? I don't know of any case prior to the mid-1980's. This should tell you something about how injustice and racism have permeated our society at every level.
1) when a young Caucasian male is arrested for mass murder in the Aurora or Charleston shootings, he gets the full benefit of the best possible defense and a prosecution that is scrupulously careful to make no mistakes. But in the described case, the accused received none of that and was virtually peremptorily sentenced to death.
2) The prosecution cheated and knew it cheated, and lied in followups about cheating. Just "knowing" the accused is guilty doesn't ever justify the prosecution cheating.
3) Did you know that for the first 300 years of our history, no Caucasian was ever executed for the murder of a non-Caucasian person, unless it was "collateral damage" to the murder of a Caucasian? I don't know of any case prior to the mid-1980's. This should tell you something about how injustice and racism have permeated our society at every level.
88
While the facts of this case are egregious as the man convicted seems to be the correct person as reader Siobhan notes, the exclusion of blacks is routine in jury selection in criminal (and civil) cases where the evidence is far from overwhelming. In my limited trial experience, the courts accept any excuse for their removal -- if the prosecutor is able to keep a straight face. As one example as shoofoolatte points out in her remark, there are numerous examples of strikes of members of the jury pool for reasons that are downright bizarre. Prosecutors don't want blacks and defense attorneys don't want teachers, retired military, policemen/women and others with experience in a hierarchical system of any race.
A solution in the instance of racial strikes would be to include more potential jurors of the race in the pool than peremptory strikes available. Such a solution would be difficult to effect and would create a new set of problems. The case for peremptory challenges remaining grows weaker. Perhaps there should be no peremptory challenges allowed in capital cases and maybe not even in cases where the imprisonment exposure is more than twenty years.
A solution in the instance of racial strikes would be to include more potential jurors of the race in the pool than peremptory strikes available. Such a solution would be difficult to effect and would create a new set of problems. The case for peremptory challenges remaining grows weaker. Perhaps there should be no peremptory challenges allowed in capital cases and maybe not even in cases where the imprisonment exposure is more than twenty years.
8
And where is the data on how often a single black juror will irrationally vote for acquittal due to racial solidarity and allow a guilty defendant to walk free?
O.J. anyone?
O.J. anyone?
64
A single holdout juror forces a mistrial, not an acquittal.
8
Also interesting would be how often a single white juror irrationally votes for acquittal due to racial solidarity and allows a defendant to walk free.....Robert Durst anyone?
Except that, when white jurors inexplicably acquit guilty defendants it's called "reasonable doubt"...........same goes for white judges who inexplicably acquit white defendants like the "affluenza kid".
Except that, when white jurors inexplicably acquit guilty defendants it's called "reasonable doubt"...........same goes for white judges who inexplicably acquit white defendants like the "affluenza kid".
5
Do whites have racial solidarity? Sounds like you do!
3
as a former prosecutor, I can tell you exactly why it is done. I've seen multiple examples of extremely guilty black defendants go free because a black(s) on the jury simply would not vote to convict one of their own. The game becomes being able to articulate a non race based reason to exercise a peremptory challenge against a black whom a prosecutor knows good and well based on experience will not convict a fellow black if left on the jury.
59
Surely you see the error in this line of argument? You think it's okay to exclude a random black person on the basis of what some other black individuals have done? That is basically textbook discrimination.
I've encountered a couple of racist prosecutors in the past. Your logic tells me it's okay to presume that you must be racist as well.
I've encountered a couple of racist prosecutors in the past. Your logic tells me it's okay to presume that you must be racist as well.
3
Can you not see you prove the point? The purpose of the challenges is not to convict or not convict someone. That person you say will not convict a member of their own race is a citizen called to jury duty. If they think the person should be declared innocent, after a trial, then so be it. Do you also think that a white person, who ALWAYS votes guilty to a black defendant should be struck from a jury? I would say not as your motive seems to be to find a jury to convict someone. Your comment shows why so many people have little belief and trust in our criminal justice system.
3
How do you define "extremely guilty"? How do you know how the jurors voted? How do you know what their reasoning was for their vote? How do you make the leap from those assumptions to deciding all black jurors should be excluded?
2
Without context, the stats quoted by the NYT have no relevance.
In the studies cited by the NYT, did they say when the exclusions took place? i.e. how many blacks were excluded via peremptory challenge and how many were excluded "for cause?"
I was once voir dired when all challenges were available, and I was excluded (I assume by the defense because I work in law enforcement), but so was a nun (I assume by the prosecution who might have assumed she'd be sympathetic to the defendant).
A more meaningful study might cite the stats of exclusion for peremptory challenges as compared to "for cause" challenges.
In the studies cited by the NYT, did they say when the exclusions took place? i.e. how many blacks were excluded via peremptory challenge and how many were excluded "for cause?"
I was once voir dired when all challenges were available, and I was excluded (I assume by the defense because I work in law enforcement), but so was a nun (I assume by the prosecution who might have assumed she'd be sympathetic to the defendant).
A more meaningful study might cite the stats of exclusion for peremptory challenges as compared to "for cause" challenges.
5
We have the best justice system money can buy. Pray you never get caught up in it unless you are rich.
8
The saddest part is that I can't help but wonder:
"Was anyone actually surprised by this?"
"Was anyone actually surprised by this?"
15
I would want a jury that acquits me if I'm on trial, or one that upholds my case if I'm the plaintiff.
I could care less what the reasoning is for dismissal of a prospective jurist.
I could care less what the reasoning is for dismissal of a prospective jurist.
7
"Prosecutors now claim, implausibly, that their notes show a concerted effort to keep diligent records in order to rebut expected charges of racial discrimination."
Why is the claim implausible? They have to have a cover story, don't they?
Why is the claim implausible? They have to have a cover story, don't they?
5
You need some reading comprehension skills - READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN. The prior paragraphs clearly state that after the conviction, for 30 years, the state prosecutors REFUSED to hand over their jury-selection notes while at the same time denying that race was a factor to strike all black jurors from the trial. It is only NOW that the notes now released show that they blatantly lied about race not being a factor to exclude jurors.
Just because you want to forget about race doesn't make it go away.
Just because you want to forget about race doesn't make it go away.
2
SCOTUS presides over one of the most racist justice systems in the world, the facts of this particular case not withstanding. Prosecutors in this country are a disgrace. Obviously. Nice work team.
2
Having personally experienced two cases in which a black juror was the only "no" vote to convict an obviously guilty black defendant, ("I just don't think he's guilty") and found the same situation encountered by several friends, I certainly understand the angst of having black jurors excluded based on race.
Just don't complain about crime in your neighborhood or try to move into mine.
Just don't complain about crime in your neighborhood or try to move into mine.
51
Well, Good John, many white guys like to "convict an obviously guilty black defendant"...it's just to bad one of them is a NYT reader.
And i certainly won't try to move into your neighborhood. Sounds dangerous!
And i certainly won't try to move into your neighborhood. Sounds dangerous!
11
What a disgusting comment that last sentence was
9
Well, then, stay away from DC. There blacks repeatedly re-elected Marion Barry as mayor even after seeing video tapes of him with hookers and cocaine. They believed he was "set up." They seemed to have had zero confidence in the system, which does raise the question how they can operate fairly within a system they view so negatively. It explains why they would see their role as "defenders"against it.
6
Prosecutors' peremptory challenges are screened for racism by judges. If there is rampant and transparent abuse by prosecutors then judges are also to blame. Of course, the police and jailers have long since been branded as the most flagrant racists in law enforcement. From soup to nuts, we are told, the system is tainted by racism. Regulating peremptory challenges in such a system is nothing more than a band aid. Denied such challenges, racist prosecutors and judges can easily abuse challenges for cause to achieve the same purpose. A justice system that is blind to justice needs to be purged or remade. The allegations of racism have been shocking. The suggested remedies have been little more than tinkering. Those who charge that law enforcement is racist through and through apparently remain committed to a system that isn't working. It's as if their answer to segregation was to require whites with assuring that separate was really equal. The reformers are long in accusations but short in meaningful solutions. It's hard to take them seriously.
1
I expect the five Republcians on the court to affirm the decision to seat all white juries. This is the state of our broken criminal justice system today.
2
I cannot speak to jury bias by prosecutors, BUT as a juror several times over the years, I can say that way too many intelligent, middle-class and upper-class people simply refuse to serve on jury duty...that is far worse than keeping any single group off juries. We need responsible, intelligent, law-abiding citizens to be on juries, regardless of their ethnicity...many jurors do NOT have a clue as to what their job is as a juror and have no problem just deciding that someone is or isn't guilty because of how the defendant looks or what color they are...or they just nullify because of what society tells them they should do in particular cases.
9
How does one "refuse" to be on a jury? Maybe Pennsylvania has more lenient exceptions. Here in Massachusets with the "one-day-or-one-trial" system, jurors are told that excuses like work demands are not permissible. (I was called recently and heard that very statement by the judge who gave the opening remarks to the pool.) That's a problem with a simple solution. Make everyone serve regardless of their situation in life. I know that can sound harsh or unsympathetic, but I'm more concerned that juries overall be representative of their communities. Jury duty is a civic responsibility that we all should share.
TRANSPARENCY is the answer to the problems. If the opposing attorneys were required to submit their written notes to the court for review by the opposite side, I think that their actions would get cleaned up pretty fast because of the judicial oversight. It's not perfect, but the accused has the option of requesting a new trial if there seems to be evidence of wrongdoing and of reporting the judge and attorneys to the state bar if legal violations seem to be present.
4
Media so hung up on race, that they let welfare reform slip by unnoticed.
8
From my time on juries I have rarely found blacks who wanted to sit on the jury anymore than I did.
8
When someone points to doing everything possible to get a person convicted, why does that "everything" have to include a distrust of all African Americans to act on behalf of justice?
76
The O.J. Simpson jury, still fresh in the public mind.
14
Having read Michelle Alexander's the "New Jim Crow", this article is not a revelation. It seems that when it comes to prosecuting a person of color, whites, in only this instance, become the defendant's peer and can leave their biases at the door. Right.
Justice is not blind. It can discern color when the objective is keep the pipeline to industrial prisons full.
#allivesmatterbutnotequally
Justice is not blind. It can discern color when the objective is keep the pipeline to industrial prisons full.
#allivesmatterbutnotequally
17
I am not black. I have never been chosen to be on a jury despite having been called to jury duty several times. I'm always eliminated during the selection process. The last time the question was: who here has written Letters to the newspaper? I raised my hand. What do you write about? Oh a number of issues in the news. Criminal Justice? Yes. I knew then that I was out.
49
That is a challenge for cause. One of the lawyers decided that anyone so invested in criminal justice might not be good at deciding cases on their facts. When you are struck because of your answer to a question, that is always a strike for cause. Peremptory challenges, which are at issue here, are strikes allowed each side for no specific reason.
4
It might be a strike "for cause," but the reasoning is absurd. As a society we want juries to include people interested enough in criminal justice to write letters to a newspaper, just as we want jurors who don't. I can see striking a juror "for cause" if she is the cousin of the accused, but for writing a letter to a newspaper? Are you suggesting everyone who comments here at the Times should be struck from juries just for that reason?
1
And when defense lawyers' every strike is white, what then?
13
Given that whites make up a majority of the potential jury pools in most places, using peremptory challenges on whites is unlikely to exclude every selected white person from the jury. But in a situation where there are few white people in the jury pool, excluding all of them based merely on their race would be a violation of the law as well, and would be subject to Constitutional challenge.
In short, that rarely happens, if at all. When it does, it's illegal.
In short, that rarely happens, if at all. When it does, it's illegal.
6
"The sister called the police, who found White's body lying on the floor in her bedroom covered to her chin by a blanket. Her face was coated with talcum powder. Her jaw was broken. She had a severe gash on the top of her head. She had been sexually molested with a salad-dressing bottle, and strangled to death. A number of her possessions were missing from her home."
"The appellant, Timothy Tyrone Foster, was arrested for White's murder a month later when he threatened his live-in companion and she responded by turning him in. The victim's possessions were recovered from their home and from Foster's two sisters. Foster was interrogated and confessed."
I can understand why the prosecutors did everything possible to get this guy convicted.
You make good points, but surely there is a better or more sympathetic example.
http://murderpedia.org/male.F/f/foster-timothy-tyrone.htm
"The appellant, Timothy Tyrone Foster, was arrested for White's murder a month later when he threatened his live-in companion and she responded by turning him in. The victim's possessions were recovered from their home and from Foster's two sisters. Foster was interrogated and confessed."
I can understand why the prosecutors did everything possible to get this guy convicted.
You make good points, but surely there is a better or more sympathetic example.
http://murderpedia.org/male.F/f/foster-timothy-tyrone.htm
43
The issue isn't that the black potential jurors might be more sympathetic to him, or that someone else might be a more sympathetic example, but that the potential jurors were not given the chance to participate simply because they were black. If they were part of the final jury, they might well have convicted the defendant as well. We'll never know since they were excluded because they were black.
25
I understand your frustration about a case that seems to you to be clear cut...however, it is not about whether a person is guilty or not, but whether in this country they can get a fair and impartial trial, which is at the foundation of our system. You seem to be saying that since all evidence points to this person, there is no need for a trial, or for an impartial trial. We do NOT live in China, fortunately...this system is still the best in the world and we need to support it, not tear it down because we don't like this particular defendant or case...in fact, just like free speech, it is the worst instances that we need to defend the strongest or our own liberties will soon be taken from us.
20
Sympathy is not a part of justice, truth is. His case may not change...but if there's a mistrial because of the exclusion of Blacks, then you can look at the prosecutor for wasting tax payer money for the first AND second trials. Should probably take it out of his paycheck, too. No matter how heinous the crime:
"And Justice For All"
"And Justice For All"
16