And how often are whites or blacks, women or men, gays or straights, muslims or Christians, etc. dismissed because the defense strikes them? I guess we don't want to talk about that, it only matters if blacks are dismissed? The NYTimes has completely lost its perspective on race. Guess it feeds some progressive mantra to keep racism front and center, whether it exists or not. But from where I sit, the racism in America is firmly seated in the plush offices of the NYTimes.
8
A lot of Blacks get excused from juries because of their focus on Black victim-ism instead of justice and the crime. Just look at the Oj trial as an example.
8
'...He was accused of killing an elderly white woman...'
Perhaps not the best Poster Child for this issue, as he was convicted of heinously beating and then killing an elderly woman.
Or is the suggestion that black jurors would acquit him, simply because of his race?
Perhaps not the best Poster Child for this issue, as he was convicted of heinously beating and then killing an elderly woman.
Or is the suggestion that black jurors would acquit him, simply because of his race?
4
I was recently in jury selection for attempted murder in Middlesex County, New Jersey. The defendant was Black, the prosecutor Indian, and the defendant's private lawyer was White. Both sides duked it out for two days and went over close to 150 jurors. Towards the end of second day the prosecutor settled on the jury but the defendant's lawyer would not and kept knocking jurors off, to the point that people in the room were just moaning out loud when he would object. In the end only two men were left, both Black late 30s, 40s. and well educated. The rest were all women mostly home makers or a couple of them just out of college. By no way a representation of Middlesex County population. All other males, and womed who were well educated and in managerial postions, were rejected by the defender's attorney.
Lesson learned; if you can afford a good enough lawyer, he/she will wear down the public prosecutor and you get the jury you want. If you cannot, you are in trouble.
Lesson learned; if you can afford a good enough lawyer, he/she will wear down the public prosecutor and you get the jury you want. If you cannot, you are in trouble.
5
Why should this matter as you have a Black man sitting in the highest office in America. There is no racism as whites and all races in America love and respect each other, right?
2
"America" does not tolerate this racism. It is the corrupt "justice"system. The first thing law students learn that the practice of law has nothing to do with "justice".
Prosecutors only care about "scalps" (convictions). They allow the police to lie in the course of "good police work". The Duke DA ruined the lives of many young men. What did the "justice system" do about that? He was given a slap on the wrist. The people he bullied into lying suffered worse punishment than he did.
Even the "Miranda Rights" recital lacks total truth. They eliminated the part 'Nothing you say can or will be used FOR you in a court of law and in fact will be withheld from your attorney unless a judge forces us to reveal it"
Prosecutors only care about "scalps" (convictions). They allow the police to lie in the course of "good police work". The Duke DA ruined the lives of many young men. What did the "justice system" do about that? He was given a slap on the wrist. The people he bullied into lying suffered worse punishment than he did.
Even the "Miranda Rights" recital lacks total truth. They eliminated the part 'Nothing you say can or will be used FOR you in a court of law and in fact will be withheld from your attorney unless a judge forces us to reveal it"
2
"How America Tolerates Racism in Jury Selection" is a headline that sugar-coats the problem.
Hom America Executes Racism in Jury Selection" would be more accurate a headline, as it highlights the intentionality of the actions. These prosecutoer are practicing overt, not institutionalized, racism.
Hom America Executes Racism in Jury Selection" would be more accurate a headline, as it highlights the intentionality of the actions. These prosecutoer are practicing overt, not institutionalized, racism.
1
"This is problematic because interracial juries make fewer factual errors, deliberate longer and consider a wider variety of perspectives than all-white juries, according to several studies."
I'd like to see these studies. This is one of the most racist statements ever. So whites just 'vote' regardless of evidence?! Blacks are smarter and better at analysis?! Shame on the NYTimes. Let me see those 'studies' - are they all done by the Upshot? The ACLU? Sharpton?
What about the jury for OJ?
I'd like to see these studies. This is one of the most racist statements ever. So whites just 'vote' regardless of evidence?! Blacks are smarter and better at analysis?! Shame on the NYTimes. Let me see those 'studies' - are they all done by the Upshot? The ACLU? Sharpton?
What about the jury for OJ?
10
Yes, all juries should be mixed. I mean that the O J jury was pretty mixed up.
3
It's important to guard against bias in whatever way works best, but at the same time, I think we should have some faith in the general ability of people to be impartial jurors. The purpose of the rules is to guard against those who would be biased, not to cast suspicion on everyone.
3
If America won't die from racism, it sure will die with it.
1
There is a simple solutiom: eliminate peremptory challenges. They are used by both sides, in every case, to try to shape a jury to their advantage. That is the antithesis of a search for a fair and unbiased jury. Eliminating peremptory challenges would respect our fellow citizens, keeping them from sitting for hours or days, losing time at work and often losing pay, just to be rejected for any or no reason. It would reduce the burden on courts of summoning and processung large numbers of jurors. It would free up courtrooms sooner and reduce the trial backlog. And it would prevent the improper use of strikes to exclude jurors based on race (or gender, age, sexual orientation).
3
Why is this just a problem in our criminal justice system? What about civil jury trials? They have voir dire too, and exclude jurors. Same rules apply, AFAIK. Probably the same abuses.
Will the SCOTUS decision have an impact on ALL voir dire? It should, if you want our total justice system to be fair.
I can imagine civil cases -- say, involving tenants rights, consumer protection, tort liability, divorces, etc -- involving Hispanics, Blacks, and other minorities that would have the same jury selection/exclusion issues as a criminal trial.
Bottom line: Jury selection, in any jury trial, is a mess. The whole process has turned into its own "industry," with the objective to make the jury be on "your" side. Big companies are for hire to determine how to do this -- if you can afford the $$.
Indeed, jury selection has become probably the most important factor in the winning (or losing) a of case, criminal or civil -- facts (and law) be damned.
Shouldn't be that way.
Will the SCOTUS decision have an impact on ALL voir dire? It should, if you want our total justice system to be fair.
I can imagine civil cases -- say, involving tenants rights, consumer protection, tort liability, divorces, etc -- involving Hispanics, Blacks, and other minorities that would have the same jury selection/exclusion issues as a criminal trial.
Bottom line: Jury selection, in any jury trial, is a mess. The whole process has turned into its own "industry," with the objective to make the jury be on "your" side. Big companies are for hire to determine how to do this -- if you can afford the $$.
Indeed, jury selection has become probably the most important factor in the winning (or losing) a of case, criminal or civil -- facts (and law) be damned.
Shouldn't be that way.
1
It's ridiculous to focus on jury selection (sometimes) excluding black jurors, without addressing the larger issue. Which is that, lawyers should not be able to exclude anyone. There should be an impartial third party, who works for neither side, and who is bound by law to ensure a jury that is as diverse as possible. And that means not just by race, but age, social status, education level, religious affiliation or none, political affiliation, etc. And while some might argue that even a third party is not going to be completely unbiased, we certain know that the lawyers representing the two side are certainly in now way, unbiased.
Times have changed and things aren't so black and white anymore, so to speak. A liberal or otherwise fair and open-minded white person is just as likely (if not moreso) to not give a black person the death sentence, than is a conservative Republican black man. So looking at the makeup of juries in purely black and white terms is irrelevant.
I'm just stymied by how the opposing teams have been able for so long, to craft the juries into being exactly what they want, or as close to that as possible??
Times have changed and things aren't so black and white anymore, so to speak. A liberal or otherwise fair and open-minded white person is just as likely (if not moreso) to not give a black person the death sentence, than is a conservative Republican black man. So looking at the makeup of juries in purely black and white terms is irrelevant.
I'm just stymied by how the opposing teams have been able for so long, to craft the juries into being exactly what they want, or as close to that as possible??
3
Prosecutors are not stupid. They know the black crime rate is three times the white crime rate, so it is no surprise that they disqualify black jurors more often than white jurors. They also know that liberals have worked hard to create a sense of victimhood on the part of all racial minorities -- achievement amongst blacks is not celebrated by liberals, only success is pleading victimhood. Compare the liberals" celebration of the thug Michael Brown with their denigration of Dr. Carson.
So if your defendant is a minority, there is a much better chance that a minority juror will be sympathetic to criminals generally and feel the person being tried is a victim of white oppression, so why do you want such a person on a jury?
Of course it is unfair, since many minorities are responsible people and do not internalize the liberal chorus of victimhood for all minorities, but as a prosecutor, once you have established that the criminal should be convicted and can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, why take a chance with a juror who is more likely to sympathize with criminals and believe in victimhood for all minorities?
So if your defendant is a minority, there is a much better chance that a minority juror will be sympathetic to criminals generally and feel the person being tried is a victim of white oppression, so why do you want such a person on a jury?
Of course it is unfair, since many minorities are responsible people and do not internalize the liberal chorus of victimhood for all minorities, but as a prosecutor, once you have established that the criminal should be convicted and can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, why take a chance with a juror who is more likely to sympathize with criminals and believe in victimhood for all minorities?
5
I should also add that the very proposal to ensure that blacks 'never' be struck from juries, is in itself, racist. For it implies that all black folk think alike and act alike. It implies that all black folk come from the same life experiences. Sure, they may all be black, and have had to endure racism. But some are Democrat, some Republican. Some grew up in projects with a single mom. Others grew up in the suburbs with two parents. Some went to public school. Some graduated from college. To imply that the lawyers for a black client will get a 'favorable' verdict if only their entire jury were black, or mostly black, is in and of itself, racist. Not all blacks are or think alike.
7
I support Jury Nullification as a concept and have seen it used to correct an injustice done by our local Sheriff. Start to require judges to inform and educate the complete jury pool to their rights and powers as jurors so justice can be served rather than blind obedience to rules written by highly paid elected officials that are lawyers.
Isn't it a conflict of interest to have lawyers writing the laws they will use to generate business for themselves?
Isn't it a conflict of interest to have lawyers writing the laws they will use to generate business for themselves?
3
The elephant in the room is that a black juror might be fair and impartial or might be a staunch defender of a persecuted minority regardless of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
The other elephant in the room is that a white juror might be fair and impartial or might be determined to put a black menace behind bars regardless of the evidence.
It is hard to discuss the question rationally with these two elephants snuffling around.
The other elephant in the room is that a white juror might be fair and impartial or might be determined to put a black menace behind bars regardless of the evidence.
It is hard to discuss the question rationally with these two elephants snuffling around.
9
The only way to address this issue is to insist that jury make-up reflects the demography of the jurisdiction. Otherwise jury selection will remain a tool for creating an uneven playing field.This holds true irrespective of the prejudice litigators are seeking to include or exclude-racial,ethnic,religious,lifestyle or class.
3
It is the defendant who has a choice and asks for a jury trial. Why, given the environment pictured?
We all know the answer.
We all know the answer.
2
I wonder what the outcome would be in cases where the jury is comprised of all African Americans and the defendant is on trial for insider trading or manipulation of the LIBOR bench mark interest rate.
2
I'm not certain how balance can be enforced on a jury, when voice dire is all about discriminating against unstated bias. We all have biases, including minorities.
My experience on a jury has convinced me that they work: twelve of us found a minority defendant not guilty, as the prosecution simply did not adequately prove a case. The defendant apparently didn't trust us: he fled town the day the verdict was rendered.
My experience on a jury has convinced me that they work: twelve of us found a minority defendant not guilty, as the prosecution simply did not adequately prove a case. The defendant apparently didn't trust us: he fled town the day the verdict was rendered.
2
The author fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a jury. Its sole function is to be a fair representation of community values. Many prosecutors strike blacks because the racism isn't on the prosecution side, but on the juror side. The OJ case is a good example.
The public has a right to be protected from crime through fair juries. When the black community is itself so racist as to be biased and therefore unobjective, prosecutors serve their function by striking them in their peremptories.
Sorry, but sometimes a bit of blunt truth is preferable to romantic fantasy.
The public has a right to be protected from crime through fair juries. When the black community is itself so racist as to be biased and therefore unobjective, prosecutors serve their function by striking them in their peremptories.
Sorry, but sometimes a bit of blunt truth is preferable to romantic fantasy.
10
Hum, I wonder how you would feel if your child was on trial and the jury was made up entirely of people of a different race? Would you feel as if you were being judged by a jury of your "peers"?
10
Your statement implies that blacks are not part of the public, and that an “impartial jury” (written in the 6th Amendment) is something blacks are incapable of being members of, but that whites are. Who is the racist here?
18
the jurors should be hidden and names disguised with a number,,because lawyers will scrutinize the way they do now based on race...which is really wrong
6
We allow too many peremptory challenges (as many as 15 in certain fairly common serious felonies in NYS). Reduce them across the board for all felonies to two. This allows an attorney to exclude the problematic juror whose verbal responses are reassuring but whose non-verbal cues show bias. There are always a couple who fall into this category. This will virtually eliminate the ability to exclude a class, as challenges against the remainder must be based on cause with stated reasons.
2
Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court have refused to acknowledge, in recent cases that racism still exists in the United States. Recent events in Ferguson and Charleston have made their attitude of denial risible and disingenuous. The use of race by the prosecution in this case is undeniable. Quoting Justice Roberts in a Seattle case, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
4
If whites are prejudiced then why wouldn't blacks be prejudiced? People are only as good as they are and in this country affiliation trumps intelligence and honesty.
5
We also know that whites have an inherent bias against African Americans, which has been proven. Minorities do not trust the system any more, not even prosecutors or the Grand Jury process.
1
American tolerates racism in criminal justice system, student loan dispersion,civic services, banking, schooling, Canada born white Ted Cruz calling on African American president to show his birth certificate etc. etc. . List is too long.
6
If being black would keep me off the jury then put me in that column.
1
Maybe, but it would highly increase the likelihood that you'll be in front of the jury having your case heard.
2
If IBM can invent a computer to play chess, they can invent one to select juries or better yet, be the jury.
2
We tolerate racism in everything else, so why not this?
In fact, The GOP presidential "candidates" are so proud of their racism they raise money on it.
In fact, The GOP presidential "candidates" are so proud of their racism they raise money on it.
6
As an attorney and former prosecutor, I can only fantasize about the day when peremptory strikes will no longer be considered consistent with Due Process. Until then, courts should take over the process. When the first 12 potential jurors are empaneled for voir dire, there should be a strong presumption that those are the 12 who will hear the case. There is too much "art" in jury selection and this results in the whole criminal process being treated more like a competitive sport than a search for the truth.
13
The way jury service is handled in my area (pay per hour is less than minimum wage), I think it automatically excludes anyone who is not retired, upper middle class/ wealthy, or who has a job where you are paid for jury duty.
6
Peremptory challenge should be eliminated. If the prosecution or defense wants to exclude someone, let them make a substantive argument to the judge, or to a board of some kind.
1
The problem with your recommendation, a common one, is that judges are often unwilling to allow challenges for cause even where juror bias seems likely. Thus a police officer is called for jury duty in a tral for assaulting a police officer will seldom be removed for cause if he says he is no more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer than that of the accused. It is the same in a civil cases. A person who once sued a hospital for malpractice is unlikely to be removed for cause if she answers "no" when asked if tihis experience might make her skeptical of the hospital's defense.
Peremptory challenges are typically used and most likely to be used to remove jurors whom a lawyer suspects is biased but who is not removable for cause. Peremptories usually make for fairer juries.
The problem with the evasions of Batson, apart from the fact that they are cynical evasions of constitutional commands by officials sworn to uphold the law, is that even if race gives a person different perspectives on life, different perspectives seldom constitute actionable bias, and white perspectives are no more reflective of bias or less influential than black ones. In many counties prosecutors by using peremptories can secure all or largely white juries to try black criminal defendants, although in other areas blacks may have an advantage. Either way the law should demand credible and consistent reasons when a lawyer dismisses almost all jurors of one race..
Peremptory challenges are typically used and most likely to be used to remove jurors whom a lawyer suspects is biased but who is not removable for cause. Peremptories usually make for fairer juries.
The problem with the evasions of Batson, apart from the fact that they are cynical evasions of constitutional commands by officials sworn to uphold the law, is that even if race gives a person different perspectives on life, different perspectives seldom constitute actionable bias, and white perspectives are no more reflective of bias or less influential than black ones. In many counties prosecutors by using peremptories can secure all or largely white juries to try black criminal defendants, although in other areas blacks may have an advantage. Either way the law should demand credible and consistent reasons when a lawyer dismisses almost all jurors of one race..
1
If the decision is a "Rational" one then why does one's race matter ?
If the decision is more sociological than rational then do we need an exact
racial mix of the local community and mix of intelligence... etc ?
All in all it seems very unjust.
At least allow the Jurors to ask questions of the Witnesses so they can make
up their own mind before they render a verdict.
If the decision is more sociological than rational then do we need an exact
racial mix of the local community and mix of intelligence... etc ?
All in all it seems very unjust.
At least allow the Jurors to ask questions of the Witnesses so they can make
up their own mind before they render a verdict.
Just abolish all peremptory challenges : USA is the last Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction that still use large numbers of them.
4
"How America tolerates racism ...".
"America" tolerates nothing, being an abstraction. Not only doesn't "America" know, it doesn't know that it doesn't know. It might as well be dead. Many undoubtedly wish it was.
The impartial administration of law and justice is reserved for government, if only to prevent anarchy. That makes it a compelling State interest. Therefore, it falls to the State to police itself. Ordinary citizens lack influence, even recourse.
That the State not only tolerates racism but actually encourages it impeaches its legitimacy.
"America" tolerates nothing, being an abstraction. Not only doesn't "America" know, it doesn't know that it doesn't know. It might as well be dead. Many undoubtedly wish it was.
The impartial administration of law and justice is reserved for government, if only to prevent anarchy. That makes it a compelling State interest. Therefore, it falls to the State to police itself. Ordinary citizens lack influence, even recourse.
That the State not only tolerates racism but actually encourages it impeaches its legitimacy.
3
As in virtually all exposes on racism, the proof is based on statistics, not on any racist statements. On similar grounds. we have been told that white cops are racist, grand juries are racist, judges are racist, and sentencing is racist. In short, the conclusion is that the criminal justice system is racist because statistics suggest that is so. Statistics show that blacks score low on standardized tests, commit more violent crimes, seldom rise from poverty, and have more children out of wedlock. The statistics regarding criminal justice suggest bad things about whites. These other statistics suggest bad things about blacks. None of these statistics prove anything at all, however, other than the willingness of the feeble-minded and poorly informed to distort the truth for fun and profit.
3
Call it anecdotal, but here is my experience of numerous cycles of jury duty.
Every one of the defendants were African-American makes. The defense team was observed stacking the juries along these lines:
They preferred women over men.
They preferred employees over managers, owners or professional people.
They preferred less educated over more educated.
They preferred older over younger.
They preferred poorly spoken over well spoken.
And they preferred anyone over any white male- regardless of background or the answers when questioned during jury selection.
We need reform of our jury system.
Every one of the defendants were African-American makes. The defense team was observed stacking the juries along these lines:
They preferred women over men.
They preferred employees over managers, owners or professional people.
They preferred less educated over more educated.
They preferred older over younger.
They preferred poorly spoken over well spoken.
And they preferred anyone over any white male- regardless of background or the answers when questioned during jury selection.
We need reform of our jury system.
7
What is not being told here is how black folks try to get released from Jury duty. In June/July 2014 I was called to jury duty in Fulton County, Georgia. It was a murder trial for a black man in the west end of Atlanta. I was called back with about 80-100 others into the courtroom. It was 50-50 black and white to start.
It was absolutely ridiculous with how blacks tried to get out of serving on the jury. Whites did not. For example: a Kaiser nurse said she was the only RN at her clinic and could not be missed. The judge responded that Kaiser was a big company and has an obligation to allow their company to serve on juries. She could give his clerk their HR # his clerk would make a phone call, he also said he would make sure Kaiser paid her he knows the CEO. 2.). A guy who claimed to be a RE investor tried to claim that she could not avoid the area the West end during the trial. The judge said simple, I will just hold you in contempt every night in jail, to make sure you avoid that area, since you don't live near their.
The excuses from black folks not to serve were absurd! Yes for many people especially a murder trial where you only get $25 per day is an economic hardship. It is part of being a citizen.
The whole story needs to be told!!!
It was absolutely ridiculous with how blacks tried to get out of serving on the jury. Whites did not. For example: a Kaiser nurse said she was the only RN at her clinic and could not be missed. The judge responded that Kaiser was a big company and has an obligation to allow their company to serve on juries. She could give his clerk their HR # his clerk would make a phone call, he also said he would make sure Kaiser paid her he knows the CEO. 2.). A guy who claimed to be a RE investor tried to claim that she could not avoid the area the West end during the trial. The judge said simple, I will just hold you in contempt every night in jail, to make sure you avoid that area, since you don't live near their.
The excuses from black folks not to serve were absurd! Yes for many people especially a murder trial where you only get $25 per day is an economic hardship. It is part of being a citizen.
The whole story needs to be told!!!
3
The point of the story is to highlight an institutionalized bias. This is structural racism and it is a cancer in US democracy.
The fact that *some* black people may be unwilling (or, as you grudgingly admit, financially unable) to serve on juries is just beside the point.
It would be nice if we could have a serious conversation about racism, which genuinely still exists, without knee-jerk reactions, defensive speculation and the usual anecdotes of black turpitude.
The fact that *some* black people may be unwilling (or, as you grudgingly admit, financially unable) to serve on juries is just beside the point.
It would be nice if we could have a serious conversation about racism, which genuinely still exists, without knee-jerk reactions, defensive speculation and the usual anecdotes of black turpitude.
12
Jurors are excluded (and lncluded) for any number of reasons by lawyers who are trying to get a sympathetic verdict: age, gender, religion and on and on. Bias favors defendants as well as prosecutors - it's not an exact process. But it's more exact than it used to be - owing to DNA and other technologies.
I used to think more about this until my mother sat on a murder jury in New Orleans, Louisiana. A guy had clearly just blown another guy's brains out over drug money and was about to have a unanimous jury, but my mom said an elderly black woman on the jury still voted no because she said she couldn't send any more black men despite knowing he was guilty.
Fortunately we only need 10 jurors to convict in Louisiana, but some black jurors will circle the wagons around defendants because of their race
Fortunately we only need 10 jurors to convict in Louisiana, but some black jurors will circle the wagons around defendants because of their race
8
Nice use of anecdote to prop up the crypto-racist prejudice. What exactly do you imagine originally gave rise to such "wagon-circling" behavior?
8
eaxct thing happened in newark nj ....next time i will report this kind of racist to the judge...its wrong...
2
Perhaps we can remember other instances - like the trial of Emmett Till's murderers. Or even the trials of other racial incidents that never happened but should have.
5
I have gone through the comments and shocked to note that the people have made different arguments and excuses to deny the existence of acute racial discrimination that existed at present in USA. It is a fact that series of atrocities being committed in various states of USA have been against the Afro Americans. The lives and human rights of Afro Americans do not matter. The social fabric of American Society has weaken with the passage of time and the once upon a free and unbiased society is at the anvil of its death. Perhaps, this is the utmost desire of Bankers that is why the genie of racism has come out of bottle in America and Afro Americans are target this time. Would United Nations take note of such flagrant human violations being taking place in the home of World's Super Power - America.
1
The word "racism" is thrown around too carelessly. Racism means one thinks his race superior to another. For one, many Lawyers think that blacks are prone to jury nullification (can you spell O.J.?). Not without reason.
Shaping juries based on individual characters or stereotypes may be lots of things. I prefer reprehensible but that's just me.
But put "racism" back in the holster here. It's getting worn out.
Shaping juries based on individual characters or stereotypes may be lots of things. I prefer reprehensible but that's just me.
But put "racism" back in the holster here. It's getting worn out.
2
As a white man and a former prosecutor of 10 years, I have seen that there is racism in every sector of American society, and it does make for more innocent African- Americans being wrongly convicted and more severely punished.
In the meantime, this and other injustices begin with each prosecutor, when he or she makes getting a conviction more important than doing the right thing. Many assistant prosecutors are under pressure from their bosses to win convictions so that the elected DA will look good in the press. The media measure a DA’s success by his or her office’s conviction rate and not how careful that office has been in fairly and fully assessing evidence and the credibility of prosecution witnesses.
It is very RARE that prosecutors are ever penalized for withholding exculpatory evidence or putting on witnesses who they should have known (and perhaps, did know) were not credible. They are also often loath to report on police misconduct and admit they were wrong about a conviction. It is very hard to regulate the press without violating First Amendment freedoms, but you can punish every prosecutor who has been dishonest. And such punishment should be as severe as the damage they have done, including sending them to prison. They should not be above the law.
In the meantime, this and other injustices begin with each prosecutor, when he or she makes getting a conviction more important than doing the right thing. Many assistant prosecutors are under pressure from their bosses to win convictions so that the elected DA will look good in the press. The media measure a DA’s success by his or her office’s conviction rate and not how careful that office has been in fairly and fully assessing evidence and the credibility of prosecution witnesses.
It is very RARE that prosecutors are ever penalized for withholding exculpatory evidence or putting on witnesses who they should have known (and perhaps, did know) were not credible. They are also often loath to report on police misconduct and admit they were wrong about a conviction. It is very hard to regulate the press without violating First Amendment freedoms, but you can punish every prosecutor who has been dishonest. And such punishment should be as severe as the damage they have done, including sending them to prison. They should not be above the law.
36
The undeniable fact is that there is racism in this country, no matter how, where and when you look at. In every sphere of life here in the U.S., racism is present. It may be covert or overt, by commission or omission. Another case in the Supreme Court! Again! The large number of Blacks incarcerated, on death row, on life sentences cannot be explained away by just an increased criminality among Blacks. There are stats and stats regarding the choice of Whites against Blacks who maybe more qualified. The judicial system is compromised right at the time of jury selection to result in a verdict that is set by factors other than a judicial process. Our Judicial system has become a real farce. How can justice be served when each step is biased - the community, the Police Officers, the Prosecutors, jury selectors, jurors and last but not the least judges. An appeal from a Black prisoner is more likely to be refused than a White. And even when new evidence comes to light, showing the innocence of the person and the prosecution's willful overlooking of evidence, the case is thrown for statute of limitations or some such irrational technicality. When you take the entire numbers incarcerated, it is amazing to see, only few cases where current evidence has set the wrongly convicted person free.The whole system is rigged and stacked against the Blacks. The whole judicial system is rotten to the core.
5
Imagine, if you will, an organization for young black men aimed at exercising "open carry" rights. It organizes groups of ten or more adherents to visit their local malls, stopping in at each establishment as they pass by.
How do we think that will work out?
How do we think that will work out?
2
How America Tolerates Racism in Jury Selection? Should'nt it be How Blacks in America Have NO ENTRY into the Juror's Box?
2
We can agree that there was direct evidence of discrimination in the Foster case, but what is the standard to be applied generally? How will judges decide when the prosecutors will have to turn over their notes? Every time when there is a disporportionate use of strikes against potential jurors of color?
I'm afraid that the pervasive oppression of blacks is a necessary part of the big picture. Why? Americans are ripped off by business (the article today about corporate "fine print" to deny Americans justice). Their taxes, instead of going to schools or infrastructure to benefit the average person, goes in the pockets of the military-industrial complex and other huge corporate giants. The oppression of average Americans is now systematic and everywhere and the average Joe, struggling with bills, at least can think that there are some that have it even worse. Historically, oppression like this would lead to a revolution but the tiny percent that actually run things from their beachfront Hamptons homes are safe for now.
2
We have come far from 1860s but we also have not. Yes, slavery if dead officially, but are we really free? Black children still get murdered by whites through official police arm, sometimes for just playing with toy guns. Black students can get dragged across a class room, face down. Countless blacks were sentenced to life in prison for fake three strikes, while white punks like Justin bieber can openly do all drugs, and spit in the face of police, and he is worshiped by white teens. Black tennis players can be kicked down and cuffed for no reason. Black basketball players also have their bones broken for no reason and then charged with felony as an added insult. Black people will never be on any jury. White people made the laws, to give unlimited powers to their police, and black people can be harassed, maimed and killed under the guise of law and order, the same laws which punishes black people in a draconian way for drug crimes but smiles on the likes of Bieber. This is the two Americas no one wants talk, no whites anyway.
3
As a prosecutor, i have professional biases. But for sake of argument, I will concede that every prosecutor in America hates black people, even the most wonderful black people, simply because they are black, which seems to be the prevailing view. According to the prevailing view, juries will convict or acquit based on the defendant's race. But that is not true. Repeated multidimensional studies show that it is the race victim, not of the defendant, that most affects jury verdicts. So the race of the defendant is secondary. Blacks and whites whose victims are white tend to be convicted by white juries, and similar for blacks, with the race of the defendant being a secondary factor. Another curve ball. Most crimes are committed in urban areas, while most courts are county-based. Because the urban areas are black and the counties are white, most black defendants are facing a white jury pool from the start. So all of us evil prosecutors are hand-delivered white jury panels and, after we make our racist selections, it is the race of the victim, not the defendant, that is likely to affect the outcome. You need multidimensional studies to reveal these truths. Single dimensional, simplistic studies aren't up to the task.
3
The Sixth Amendment guarantees "..the right to a speedy and public trial, by an IMPARTIAL [emphasis mine] jury..".
A jury composed with as few characteristics of the accused as possible seems far more inline with the principle of impartiality than otherwise.
Were I prosecuting myself, for example, I'd be very much inclined to strike as many 40-something white guys as possible. The more on the jury, the greater likelihood of one (consciously or not) giving me an undeserved or warranted benefit of the doubt.
There's also a slippery slope here. Once we start forcing prosecutors to select jurors with certain characteristics, where does it stop? I'm partial to Nike running shoes. Should I be able to demand at least one juror be a wearer of Nike's as well? Where does it stop?
Lastly, there's the "speedy" part of the Sixth Amendment. Requiring juries made up of certain characteristics would undoubtedly cause delays in the process of conducting trials. For example, a random pool of potential jurors isn't broad enough as it relates to the characteristics of the accused. What now? Throw it out? Rotate pools in & out of Voire Dire until one "fits"?
Bad, bad, bad.
A jury composed with as few characteristics of the accused as possible seems far more inline with the principle of impartiality than otherwise.
Were I prosecuting myself, for example, I'd be very much inclined to strike as many 40-something white guys as possible. The more on the jury, the greater likelihood of one (consciously or not) giving me an undeserved or warranted benefit of the doubt.
There's also a slippery slope here. Once we start forcing prosecutors to select jurors with certain characteristics, where does it stop? I'm partial to Nike running shoes. Should I be able to demand at least one juror be a wearer of Nike's as well? Where does it stop?
Lastly, there's the "speedy" part of the Sixth Amendment. Requiring juries made up of certain characteristics would undoubtedly cause delays in the process of conducting trials. For example, a random pool of potential jurors isn't broad enough as it relates to the characteristics of the accused. What now? Throw it out? Rotate pools in & out of Voire Dire until one "fits"?
Bad, bad, bad.
1
A prosecutor could be fired and disbarred for not disqualifying blacks from juries after the O.J. Simpson trial. 8 black jurors and the entire African-American community celebrating the verdict....statistics and political correctness went out the window with that fiasco. Actions have consequences.
Mr Thompson probably should have started his story with that elephant in the room rather than glide through statistics and anecdotes while his readers snicker at his omission.
Mr Thompson probably should have started his story with that elephant in the room rather than glide through statistics and anecdotes while his readers snicker at his omission.
2
"Disbarred for not disqualifying blacks from juries"? You must not have read this article too closely. It is ILLEGAL to disqualify blacks from juries just because they are black. So, a prosecutor who failed to disqualify a black person from a jury and who subsequently lost his/her case, might get scolded by his/her supervisor (with no record kept of the scolding), but there would be no possibility of getting disbarred.
As for the O.J. case, it would have been an irrelevancy in the context of the argument being made in this piece. In fact data -- what you refer to as statistics -- are the ONLY relevant consideration when presenting an argument of this kind. The fact that one fairly wealthy guy who happens to be black (and famous) was in a position to hire and attract (because of the high-profile nature of the case) a strong defense team -- along with jury consultants -- is immaterial when looking at the fate of indigent black defendants in garden variety cases.
As for the O.J. case, it would have been an irrelevancy in the context of the argument being made in this piece. In fact data -- what you refer to as statistics -- are the ONLY relevant consideration when presenting an argument of this kind. The fact that one fairly wealthy guy who happens to be black (and famous) was in a position to hire and attract (because of the high-profile nature of the case) a strong defense team -- along with jury consultants -- is immaterial when looking at the fate of indigent black defendants in garden variety cases.
1
The smart people know how to get out of jury service by pretending to be biased one way or another and the rest are too stupid to figure it out or have boring jobs or are retired so they look forward to serving. My fix would be to get rid of the entire voire dire process and have the jurors that are randomly called for service be the ones to serve, biases and all.
1
I was seated for a murder trial and an assaulting a police officer trial. For the murder trial there was jury tampering, so months later I had to go back to court and testify my decision was not affected by the hold out juror. (Time and valid pressure pushed him to agree to guilty of 2nd degree murder). For the assaulting the police officer trial, I seemed to be the only one who understood that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty and that a citizen’s testimony has equal weight as a police officer’s. Fellow deliberators in both trials were lacking in logic, attention to detail, and openness to other interpretations. Everyone – judge, jury, attorneys, witnesses and defendants - was white.
Most cases end through plea bargaining (another part of a very broken system), so trials heard by a jury are messy and complicated. Jurors for today’s trials need to at least understand scientific method and the difference between causation and correlation.
End jury selection manipulation by having standing juries. For local trials, use local demographics on race, age, gender, income, education level and the all important ‘have you been a victim of a crime?’ question to create an algorithm to select juries that represent the community. If it is district level, use district demographics, etc.
The time now used to select a jury should be used to educate all jurors about their duties, the nature of testimony and valid evidence. Then randomly assign prepared juries to any trial.
Most cases end through plea bargaining (another part of a very broken system), so trials heard by a jury are messy and complicated. Jurors for today’s trials need to at least understand scientific method and the difference between causation and correlation.
End jury selection manipulation by having standing juries. For local trials, use local demographics on race, age, gender, income, education level and the all important ‘have you been a victim of a crime?’ question to create an algorithm to select juries that represent the community. If it is district level, use district demographics, etc.
The time now used to select a jury should be used to educate all jurors about their duties, the nature of testimony and valid evidence. Then randomly assign prepared juries to any trial.
1
Perfect! That finally explains the jury set up to try the OJSimpson case. Complete claptrap! Thanks to the NY Times for this provocative piece of journalism.
1
"Claptrap" is a word that would more appropriately be applied to your comment. Perhaps it didn't occur to you when citing the O.J. Simpson case as a refutation (in your mind) of this author's thesis, that Simpson had plenty of money and was therefore in a position to hire a large team of top-notch lawyers -- and jury consultants -- who made it their business to see to it that he got every break possible. Is it your belief that an indigent African-American charged with a crime gets the same kind of "Justice"?
2
How does America tolerates racism in jury selection?
Racism is at the core of the American creation. A creation built on a racial cast system and the lie of white supremacy. Justice and democracy in America as applied to black people has always been a fiction.
As Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., stated during his prophetic fight for racial equality in the land of the so called free, when referring to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, "all black people are asking America, is that you be true to what you said on paper."
Racism is at the core of the American creation. A creation built on a racial cast system and the lie of white supremacy. Justice and democracy in America as applied to black people has always been a fiction.
As Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., stated during his prophetic fight for racial equality in the land of the so called free, when referring to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, "all black people are asking America, is that you be true to what you said on paper."
3
The more basic question is why do we need juries at all at this point. I have read that jury decisions have now fallen to 5% of cases both criminal and civil. One can point to other Western democracies without juries where complaints of unfairness do not arise.
Most of us who have been called for jury service have probably noted the desire to exclude "thinking persons" who might not be influenced by rhetoric or irrelevant issues. It is almost an embarrassment to be selected for a jury.
Most of us who have been called for jury service have probably noted the desire to exclude "thinking persons" who might not be influenced by rhetoric or irrelevant issues. It is almost an embarrassment to be selected for a jury.
1
I used to be a paralegal in the Air Force. One of my jobs was to put together pools of potential "members" (the military term for juror). Our attorneys made an actual effort to ensure the final selection of members was diverse because they didn't want it to become an issue on appeal.
8
And to this day, many white americans just don't understand why black people have so little faith in our Justice System, and why their is the persistent belief that the deck is stacked against them. Well, here go.
2
I have always wondered how anyone can excuse the rampant prejudice against anyone of color, since we are all humans subject to human failures of reason and proper behavior.
Perhaps there is a strong element of personal regard that would make it impossible for us to believe we could do anything we strongly believe is morally reprehensible?
Perhaps there is a strong element of personal regard that would make it impossible for us to believe we could do anything we strongly believe is morally reprehensible?
5
In Philadelphia, the crime against people of color and people in disadvantaged communities is the alacrity with which we return hurtful people to their communities.
It usually takes a third or fourth rape or attempted homicide, or a second homicide, before our judges decide that the perpetrator might deserve a slightly stronger disincentive than s/he had previously received.
There are a lot of people out there who call themselves progressives, but demonstrate very little sincere concern for the communities of which they imagine themselves the defenders and advocates.
It usually takes a third or fourth rape or attempted homicide, or a second homicide, before our judges decide that the perpetrator might deserve a slightly stronger disincentive than s/he had previously received.
There are a lot of people out there who call themselves progressives, but demonstrate very little sincere concern for the communities of which they imagine themselves the defenders and advocates.
2
The more limited one's social circle, the more likely one is going to to distrust those outside it.
Many Americans know no one with whom they politically disagree - a lot of them are sent here by people they trust to leave comments. The sense I get hereabouts is that bias or prejudice is stronger in this country than has ever been the case.
Add to political determination the sidebar argument that one's political side is SO much more wonderful and thoughtful and means so much better than any other, and imagining some people on a jury in court makes me concerned for justice.
Many Americans know no one with whom they politically disagree - a lot of them are sent here by people they trust to leave comments. The sense I get hereabouts is that bias or prejudice is stronger in this country than has ever been the case.
Add to political determination the sidebar argument that one's political side is SO much more wonderful and thoughtful and means so much better than any other, and imagining some people on a jury in court makes me concerned for justice.
Perhaps some of this is the result of the jury that found OJ Simpson not guilty.
Both of my husbands (one at a time!) were called for jury duty. My first husband was a banker. He sat for a week and the minute he was asked hi profession, he was excused. My second husband was a teacher in an independent school. He would make it past the first question - he was a teacher, but when it was followed up as to public or private school, or where he got his degree (an Ivy), he was excused.
I guess they should both tried to get the NYTimes interested in their cases, which were clearly discriminating against white men who were educated and who worked for a bank. Funny how that never happens.
Both of my husbands (one at a time!) were called for jury duty. My first husband was a banker. He sat for a week and the minute he was asked hi profession, he was excused. My second husband was a teacher in an independent school. He would make it past the first question - he was a teacher, but when it was followed up as to public or private school, or where he got his degree (an Ivy), he was excused.
I guess they should both tried to get the NYTimes interested in their cases, which were clearly discriminating against white men who were educated and who worked for a bank. Funny how that never happens.
25
"The truth is to a trial what a hot dog is to a warm puppy."
Should you find yourself consigned to a defendant's chair in an American courtroom, God help you.
Should you find yourself consigned to a defendant's chair in an American courtroom, God help you.
11
I served on a jury last year and during jury selection there were a lot of African American jurors but like everyone else the majority of them did not want to be on a trial and came up with excuses even though the defendant was black. We ended up with maybe two on the jury. Jury selection is tough and it may be time for a system with professional jurors.
Do a lot of blacks want to serve of juries? I just wonder what percentage ask to be excluded from jury duty, for a lengthy trial, due to family or work obligations?
4
Irrelevant.
1
The article is about jurors being struck by prosecution, not people asking to be excused. No numbers presented in this article address that issue.
1
I was called to jury duty for a muder trial of a black male in Fulton county , Ga. The west end of the city of Atlanta. The jury pool started out 50/50 black/ white. I will tell you that the blacks immediately started protesting and coming up with excuses to get out.
Yes, there were gang members sitting out in the hallways of the courthouse during every break. That may have had a larger influence on the black potential jurors than whites. I did ask the sheriff deputy why tatted up tear drop felons ( aka bragging that " I have killed some one" ) gang members were allowed to sit outside and intimidate potential jurors. He said they could be in the hall.
( As an architect, I could see a fatal flaw in the courthouse design. Potential jurors should not have to break in public corridor but in a secondary private corridor, not the inmate corridor either. To avoid this intimidation factor)
Yes, there were gang members sitting out in the hallways of the courthouse during every break. That may have had a larger influence on the black potential jurors than whites. I did ask the sheriff deputy why tatted up tear drop felons ( aka bragging that " I have killed some one" ) gang members were allowed to sit outside and intimidate potential jurors. He said they could be in the hall.
( As an architect, I could see a fatal flaw in the courthouse design. Potential jurors should not have to break in public corridor but in a secondary private corridor, not the inmate corridor either. To avoid this intimidation factor)
3
Thompson is author of the infamous 2003 U.S. Department of Justice "Thompson memo" (search that term for more), the genesis of today's lamented "Holder doctrine" of non- and deferred prosecution agreements for corporations, coupled with no punishment of the individuals employed by such entities who actually do the misdeeds. Thompson issued the memo mere months before jumping to the Brookings Institute for one year (so no one could call him a sellout) and then landing in the really big bucks at Pepsi. (Today Pepsi also houses another man of color and of the law notable for his sellout of the American people, one Tony West.)
In other words, this is a man one could strongly argue is best viewed as an enemy of the state, and we would do well to shun and ignore him on principle, no matter how worthy the particular subject he wishes to opine on might be.
In other words, this is a man one could strongly argue is best viewed as an enemy of the state, and we would do well to shun and ignore him on principle, no matter how worthy the particular subject he wishes to opine on might be.
8
"An enemy of the state" Oliver? There is a certain incoherence in such an assertion given that your indictment of the gentleman in question makes its case on the basis of actions that he took while an AGENT of the state!
1
Steve, I stand by my description; there is no incoherence. But I do see an unnecessary literalism informing your comment. How about Pollard and Hanssen, two convicted spies who were both on the government payroll? Agents and enemies at the same time. Thompson may not have been a spy, but given the harm he helped set in motion I think he can fairly be called what I called him. I thank you for replying.
I am a 66-year old, female, white librarian (Master's Degree). I served on a a jury in which every juror was white and the defendant black. A felony case. The jury was a very varied panel - all levels of education, age and experience.
I had never served before and had low expectations. I was, in the end, very impressed with level of dedication and cooperation the jury demonstrated. They listened attentively in court, paid close attention to the judge's instructions and were extremely concerned to determine whether the case had or had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This was discussed at length during deliberations. It took us a day and a half to determine our verdicts.
We ended up convicting on 1 count of 6. And I ended up very encouraged and uplifted by my fellow citizens' willingness to serve and serious consideration of the issues. I saw not one iota of prejudice towards the defendant, only real thought and care given to determining the truth of the charges.
I had never served before and had low expectations. I was, in the end, very impressed with level of dedication and cooperation the jury demonstrated. They listened attentively in court, paid close attention to the judge's instructions and were extremely concerned to determine whether the case had or had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This was discussed at length during deliberations. It took us a day and a half to determine our verdicts.
We ended up convicting on 1 count of 6. And I ended up very encouraged and uplifted by my fellow citizens' willingness to serve and serious consideration of the issues. I saw not one iota of prejudice towards the defendant, only real thought and care given to determining the truth of the charges.
33
It's great that you had such a positive experience Kathleen; but to reach broad conclusions about the functioning of a vast system on the basis of one's own personal experience is unwise. Moreover, it's quite likely that one's conclusions will simply be wrong. Reread this piece, you'll find that the author is not basing his assessment of the jury system on anecdotal evidence. YOUR experience is simply ONE instance out of hundreds of thousands, if not more. In other words, for other people trying to evaluate the jury system, your experience as told by you is just an anecdote. There is nothing to learn from it. Only massive amounts of data painstakingly compiled and analysed tell the real story.
1
I am a 40 something year old black woman with a Master's degree and a registered democrat, who votes for the most qualified candidate, not along party lines.
My response: hip hip hooray for what you describe as jurors doing their job without bias (more on this later), but you are missing the point of the article. Which is that the system is rigged to exclude black jurors and that by doing so, is preventing a significant segment of this country's population in participating in dispensing justice as is their right according to the laws of this land we share.
White Americans often act as though segregation and separatism (which has now shifted from neighborhoods to systems) is ok and even normal as long as people are fair - or to be more accurate conditions are deemed as equal (remember "separate, but equal"? If I close my eyes I feel like its 1950).
It is NOT normal, equal, fair or LEGAL any way you slice it. So thanks to all those who operate without bias on juries (although if you have any insights into unconscious bias, you know that's impossible), but I'd prefer to do my own deliberations thank you.
For the record: I've been registered to vote since I was 18, actively participated in all but a handful of local elections and have been called to serve on a jury once in what is now almost 30 years. I believe black jurors are being excluded both within and BEFORE the courtroom.
My response: hip hip hooray for what you describe as jurors doing their job without bias (more on this later), but you are missing the point of the article. Which is that the system is rigged to exclude black jurors and that by doing so, is preventing a significant segment of this country's population in participating in dispensing justice as is their right according to the laws of this land we share.
White Americans often act as though segregation and separatism (which has now shifted from neighborhoods to systems) is ok and even normal as long as people are fair - or to be more accurate conditions are deemed as equal (remember "separate, but equal"? If I close my eyes I feel like its 1950).
It is NOT normal, equal, fair or LEGAL any way you slice it. So thanks to all those who operate without bias on juries (although if you have any insights into unconscious bias, you know that's impossible), but I'd prefer to do my own deliberations thank you.
For the record: I've been registered to vote since I was 18, actively participated in all but a handful of local elections and have been called to serve on a jury once in what is now almost 30 years. I believe black jurors are being excluded both within and BEFORE the courtroom.
4
Trial judges control who is excused for cause, and often reflect both their own and the system's biases. Trial judges also control the questioning of prospective jurors, and they all too often avoid or limit probing questioning that could expose a juror's racial bias in order to protect jurors from embarrassment.
Then there are the pre-emptory challenges exercised by the bias lawyers and prosecutors. Although, since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Batson, prosecutors and lawyers defending police, white supremacists, and the like, cannot overtly use race as a reason to challenge a juror, they still work very hard to exclude the few blacks who make it onto the venires in racially polarized cases because they know that the more white the jury is, the better chance they have to win.
Until the justice system and its juries reflect the actual diversity of this country, and the powerful issue of race is openly and fairly dealt with in racially charged cases, we can expect this racially driven double standard of “justice” to continue unabated.
Then there are the pre-emptory challenges exercised by the bias lawyers and prosecutors. Although, since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Batson, prosecutors and lawyers defending police, white supremacists, and the like, cannot overtly use race as a reason to challenge a juror, they still work very hard to exclude the few blacks who make it onto the venires in racially polarized cases because they know that the more white the jury is, the better chance they have to win.
Until the justice system and its juries reflect the actual diversity of this country, and the powerful issue of race is openly and fairly dealt with in racially charged cases, we can expect this racially driven double standard of “justice” to continue unabated.
23
The driver in the number of crimes committed by minorities, not prejudice in the court system.
3
It's not that we tolerate racism in jury selection, it's a part of the whole system that operates on racism. From the field investigation of the crime, to the public prosecutor's decisions, and selection of jurors who are not really peers of the defendant, at every step decisions are made by people who have a whole different life experience from the accused.
Let's face it, everything blacks and poor need is made illegal or difficult.
Let's face it, everything blacks and poor need is made illegal or difficult.
49
Lawyers have a duty to the court and the justice system as well as to the client. An honest effort to comply with the spirit of the law is required.
Given the rampant racism in America's day-to-day society, it should be hardly surprising that racism is tolerated when it comes to jury selection. And given the extremely high probability that the case might involve a Black person (victim or defendant), popular belief might hold it for improbable that a Black jury member would be able of making an intelligent and informed decision regarding the case.
A belief that in itself, is inherently racist.
A belief that in itself, is inherently racist.
6
Slightly skewed point here.
Can the NYT please stop posing questions, theories, ideas etc with the false "How America....." as if America were a monolithic personage. I suspect that if the ideas being addressed were written with more grammatical correctness the ideas might get a different focus.
Such as "How racism in Jury selection happens in America?"
Can the NYT please stop posing questions, theories, ideas etc with the false "How America....." as if America were a monolithic personage. I suspect that if the ideas being addressed were written with more grammatical correctness the ideas might get a different focus.
Such as "How racism in Jury selection happens in America?"
9
I was under the impression that prosecutors AND defense attorneys spent a great deal of time and expense trying to rig juries. Not so much in the interest of Justice, that lofty ideal with no discernible definition, but in the interest of putting another trophy on their trial mantle.
2
The Hon. Larry D. Thompson's OP-ED on intolerably discriminatory jury selection should be must-reading in all law schools from sea to shining sea. This is a PS to my comment about John Grisham earlier; John Grisham would make an excellent President and I would vote for him in a Mississippi, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and NY minute. We must look out of the box. We have eleven months till our Presidential Election, enough time to think of people who would be GREAT presidents, not just wannabe POTUSes.
Let's not forget OJ Simpson walked free from a murder trial. Marcia Clark unwittingly put her pride before her experience and gambled she could connect with any jury [especially one of color] and put OJ behind bars. This was to be the pinnacle of her career and a predominately black jury acquitted OJ.
10
Absolutely true. Lawyers also regularly exclude persons with education past a bachelors degree.
That is almost certainly provable, by the statistical methods you have already used. And adding that corrupt practice to your case might strengthen it.
That is almost certainly provable, by the statistical methods you have already used. And adding that corrupt practice to your case might strengthen it.
5
@Greenpea MN
Agreed. And speaking from experience, they regularly exclude journalists as well.
Agreed. And speaking from experience, they regularly exclude journalists as well.
The jury should reflect the defendant's peers. How many white peers does a African American have? Definitely not 100% or even 50%. Anything more than 50% should be considered a clear violation of the constitutional rights of an african american defendant for a fair and impartial trial. Unfortunately our present SCOTUS has four people who live in a delusional fantasy land, where they seriously believe that there is no discrimination against anybody . Good luck with getting a reasonable outcome with this case.
6
And yet we continue with the delusion that blacks and whites want, and therefore should, live together in harmony. Nothing could be further from the truth. One need only take off their politically correct blinders and look out at the world around them to see this cold, hard reality.
6
Speak for yourself. A lot of us want to live in harmony with different races.
What is the argument against simple random selection from the pool of available jurors? Leaving aside the issue of how the pool is determined, which could itself be biased, why not just "throw the names into a hat" and draw as many as needed? I'd give both attorneys a maximum of two peremptory challenges and move on to the trial.
As a statistician, I'd argue this is the only defensible method for selecting a "jury of one's peers." Why isn't it the standard practice?
As a statistician, I'd argue this is the only defensible method for selecting a "jury of one's peers." Why isn't it the standard practice?
9
It is not just in the South. I was a California criminal defense attorney for many years before I retired. Minorities are about three times more likely to be struck from the jury by the prosecution than whites are. So are young men of any race.
9
Despite having a driving license for more than 25 years and being registered to vote, too, I have never been called for/selected for jury duty, I've recently wondered if my real name was the reason.
Here in France, jury systems are considered corrupt and easily manipulated. Instead, three judge panels of highly trained judges are used after thorough investigations are completed of potential wrong doing.
The prosecutor and defense attorney make their cases to the judges who render an appealable decision.
12 years living here as an American expat has left me with the impression that this system works fairly and effectively.
The prosecutor and defense attorney make their cases to the judges who render an appealable decision.
12 years living here as an American expat has left me with the impression that this system works fairly and effectively.
14
The easy answer is to eliminate peremptory challenges. Unless prospective jurors have a clear conflict as determined by the judge ( who would remove them for cause) then the first six or 12 in the pool should be seated. It neither hurts or helps either side. As a bonus jury selection would take a fraction of the time it does now in big cases.
8
Yes! The Britush system does this and it is indeed far fairer.
The point here is that these jurors are not being peremptorily challenged; they're being struck for 'cause' despite the fact that 'cause' is obviously not being applied equally across the races.
As a retired lawyer, I agree completely with Mr. Stuart's recommendation. The premise underlying peremptory challenges is that there is no demonstrable cause to dismiss the prospective juror. By definition, these challenges are arbitrary and lead to all sorts of abuses. Get rid of them, period!
The Jury selection process is slanted toward those who can take days off, or at least have a flexible work schedule, preferably not too highly educated or have comparatively little legal and other professional training. If you are other minorities, you also may not pass the initial screening to even get a call.
When I lived in Philadelphia, I was called twice for Jury duty. But in my 25 years living in Hamilton County, I have never received a letter requesting that I report to the Courts to see if I would be selected as a juror. Why? nowadays, any good attorney who is worth the salt would go through an initial round by " throwing out" jurors who they are not sure would be sympathetic or against the plaintiff.
When I lived in Philadelphia, I was called twice for Jury duty. But in my 25 years living in Hamilton County, I have never received a letter requesting that I report to the Courts to see if I would be selected as a juror. Why? nowadays, any good attorney who is worth the salt would go through an initial round by " throwing out" jurors who they are not sure would be sympathetic or against the plaintiff.
1
First my sound bite. The differences between Jim Crow of the past and Jim Crow today. In the past they wore white robes and now they wear black. In the past they were lynchings now they are executions. The Jim Crow of the past was a system of controlling non-whites through disenfranchisement and now disenfranchisement is used to control anyone. In the old days a non-white could not address a white person by his first name ( they were not allowed to address a white woman unless the white woman addressed them first) uh I guess some things never change. If I walked up to the leading loud mouth Republican candidate and said Donald I have a question he would turn and walk away as his security descended on you but if you approached him hat in hand and said Mr. Trump I have a question he may answer you and then his security would descend on you. My point being in the past Jim Crow was a racist thing (not exclusively) and now it is a equal opportunity disenfranchisement system. If we don`t defend those who need our defense the most who will defend us when Jim Crow comes a knockin.
9
Racism is a sickness.
i have tried many criminal cases to juries in Dallas and Tarrant counties, Texas. I was a prosecutor in Dallas county from 1979-1982. At that time we were discouraged from selecting black jurors. There is much less bias against black veniremen today than there was then, but the bias against low-income people, especially hispanics on jury panels where a hispanic is going to go to trial, is still very strong. Income level, and indirectly race, is never ignored, even by the defense.
31
Jury selection is an intrinsically unfair process. A jury should be 12 randomly selected people, and the only exclusions should be if a juror has a personal connection with either the victim or the defendant. Not only would this be more fair, but it would speed up the trial process as well.
3
Conclusion: A jury of one peers is pure poppycock.
4
The Batson decision says that a prosecutor must give a "race neutral reason" for striking a potential juror. Sometimes there is a juror who you just have a bad feel about but can't articulate why. If its a white potential juror with a black defendant a prosecutor can strike him with no problem. If its a black juror the prosecutor probably has to take him, so it works both ways. Anyone who strikes purely on the basis of race is naive. In a capital murder case the black defendant demanded that his attorneys accept all black jurors. Six of the twelve jurors were black. After the defendant was found guilty it was the black jurors who convinced some wavering white jurors to give the defendant the death penalty. They had no use for his using a poor background as an excuse for committing three murders.
3
"If its a black juror the prosecutor probably has to take him, so it works both ways." Go back and read the article again. The statistic don't support your statement when 80% of black jurors are being struck in a community, or 50% of black jurors vice 15% of white jurors in another instance.
TRANSPARENCY, FAIRNESS, DECENCY & LAWFULNESS are all standards that need to be applied in the conduct of the attorneys involved in jury selection. To that end, I propose that the court require that both sides supply each other with complete notes on all jury selection documents, for review. If there are discriminatory remarks written on any of the documents, then a mistrial should be declared. Of course, I believe this procedure should forbid public release of the jury selection documents of both sides during the trial and after the trial as well, if the public interest would be better served by allowing the opposing sides and judges resolve the differences in chambers. Perhaps these ideas will move the process toward fairness and equality. Now we'll have to see what happens in the Supreme Court.
This case is clearly an outrage; it should (and probably will) be reversed.
But it will be very hard for the Court to come up with a formulation of Batson that can be followed effectively because there is an inherent problem with supervising peremptory challenges. Lawyers use challenges to try to optimize their chances of persuading the jury by eliminating those who they believe -- whether based on "instinct," experience or -- increasingly -- demographic research are more likely not to accept the "narrative" their client proposes. Thus, neither side is looking for fairness or a cross-section of the community; they want to increase their chances of winning. And Batson does not purport to disturb that dynamic, but only says that when playing this game, the parties can consider many aspects of a juror's known background, just not race, gender and perhaps a few other attributes.
Unfortunately, at least in some cases, race and gender are fairly important elements in any objective analysis of predicting a given juror's likely outlook. Even a more rigorously enforced version of Batson will not change this, but will simply make lawyers more subtle in coming up with "objective" reasons to justify strikes.
There is a way to eliminate racism in jury selection: get rid of peremptory challenges, so that jurors are precluded only on motion by a party for a reason found sufficient by the judge.
But it will be very hard for the Court to come up with a formulation of Batson that can be followed effectively because there is an inherent problem with supervising peremptory challenges. Lawyers use challenges to try to optimize their chances of persuading the jury by eliminating those who they believe -- whether based on "instinct," experience or -- increasingly -- demographic research are more likely not to accept the "narrative" their client proposes. Thus, neither side is looking for fairness or a cross-section of the community; they want to increase their chances of winning. And Batson does not purport to disturb that dynamic, but only says that when playing this game, the parties can consider many aspects of a juror's known background, just not race, gender and perhaps a few other attributes.
Unfortunately, at least in some cases, race and gender are fairly important elements in any objective analysis of predicting a given juror's likely outlook. Even a more rigorously enforced version of Batson will not change this, but will simply make lawyers more subtle in coming up with "objective" reasons to justify strikes.
There is a way to eliminate racism in jury selection: get rid of peremptory challenges, so that jurors are precluded only on motion by a party for a reason found sufficient by the judge.
2
Fred, the issue is not peremptory challenges - and each lawyer has only a limited number of peremptory challenges. The issue is challenges for cause when it is fairly clear that the stated "cause" is fallacious and the real cause is the race of the potential juror.
Black children get killed for playing with toy guns. Black students are dragged face down like a sack of potatoes. Black tennis players are jumped on, kneed down, and hand cuffed behind back. Black men are used as target hunting practice when running away from cops. When black people get addicted, they are sent to prison on first strike for a horrendous crime, but white people need our understanding and full support for this horrific disease. All of this will be decided by white juries, white prosecutors, white judges, and enforced by white cops, and cheered on by the whites of this country.
4
I served as a juror in a murder case of a Native American. Not one of the jurors was a Native American, nor was there a single African-American on the jury. There was one Hispanic - the other eleven were white. I was deeply concerned that that jury did not represent the ethnic diversity of the state in which I lived at that time. I suspect that the practices described in this article happen across America, to defendants who are Hispanic or Native American, as well as those who are black. Racism may be woven in to our proprietorial system.
3
A jury isn't supposed to be made up of skin pigments exactly correlating to the skin pigments living in the area. All 12 were human beings. Period. The person on trial was a human being. The victim was a human being.
This is what a jury of peers means, not the perverted bleeding hearted liberal drivel obsession of skin pigmentation and ancestral landmass occupancy. Spit out the koolaid.
This is what a jury of peers means, not the perverted bleeding hearted liberal drivel obsession of skin pigmentation and ancestral landmass occupancy. Spit out the koolaid.
12
And yet, I think most white people would feel very anxious (whether guilty or not) if the jury deciding their fate in a white on black crime was composed of all black people.
1
Prosecutors and defense attorneys all have too many peremptory challenges. And the selection system is gamed to eliminate diverse opinions as well as races- and sometimes it seem, to eliminate opinions and awareness altogether. However, I did serve on one federal jury - we were definitely a mixed bag of jurors in all ways - and we ended up deadlocked, which was an acutely frustrating outcome.
2
I've served on a jury in Manhattan for an attempted murder case. The jury was completely mixed, though mostly female. The victim, a black male, had to be subpoenaed to testify against the defendant, also a black male. That alone was a surprise to me. He was there by law, fearful that testifying against the man who tried to kill him would place his life in danger back in the neighborhood. It woke me to realities not my own over justice and crime. However, the jury members who were resistant to conviction, which was proven so clearly, the hold out group, were by demographic, young college educated females. They could not understand with their academic and social engineering political correct thoughts, that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that's all he has to do by law. No, they hammered and deflected and held us up for days, all because they've been conditioned that black people have been victimized by a white system, (not completely untrue). These young women were annoying, and dumb. Interestingly, myself, a white male and each black member of the jury swiftly voted for conviction, from the start. After we swayed each of the hold outs, a single older black woman said to me, "these young girls don't live it, I do...they don't understand what it is to go to work from these neighborhoods, come home and live next to criminals..." She and other black members had seen it all and weren't having the excuses. I was with them. One can't judge from skin color.
111
People on the whole are often annoying - and perhaps you yourself are "dumb" about some other areas. In the end you were able to get them not only to recognize a different point of view, but to change their positions, based on the merits of the case. I'd say that that was a very successful jury process.
6
Thanks MCS, You describe the difference between the education that taught one how to reason and an education that teaches one what the answer is before the question is even asked.
2
Though apparently you are judging from skin color. And gender. White females are annoying and dumb, to you.
2
The test should not be bias because we all have biases whether we know it or not. The test should be bigotry. Prosecutors and defendant's attorneys cannot be motivated by bigotry in the selection of jurors. We will never get bias completely out of the picture.
6
These lawyers probably aren't themselves biased so much as able to recognize the ways different people groups ten to think. It's like being an opinion pollster and dealing with demographics. They are paid to predict how people will think.
One told me that men convict men and women convict women and parents are much more likely to convict than the toung who think themselves to be educated.
These lawyers probably do real well on the Family Feud game show.
One told me that men convict men and women convict women and parents are much more likely to convict than the toung who think themselves to be educated.
These lawyers probably do real well on the Family Feud game show.
2
You are dreaming if you think this court will do the right thing. Don't forget 5 of these clowns struck down the heart of the 1965 Voting Rights Act! They think there is no racism now-a-days.
39
Point of information: the ''heart'' stands as it always was. Your fellow Dems put a sunset clause on one section - which was then delayed for over three decades.
You really need to read actual news and history. Those blogeers are paid to lie to get you upset.
Detroit's school students read on grade level NINE percent of the time. Who has run those schools for 63 years?
You really need to read actual news and history. Those blogeers are paid to lie to get you upset.
Detroit's school students read on grade level NINE percent of the time. Who has run those schools for 63 years?
Actually, the clowns you speak of were responding to the fact that the evidence presented in 2011 was based on data from 1965 - 1975. No data after 1975. That was the issue and regardless of your politics, you should agree that data that are over 30 years old are not relevant. Or do the ends justify the means for you?
A few years ago I was called as a potential juror on a rather ugly underage incest case in NJ. None of those involved were non-hispanic Whites. The judge, defense and accused were Black, the PA was Latina. I watched as the PA systematically excluded every Black male, and the defense attorney systematically excluded every White male, even when it was clear the excluded individual men could be fair and unbiased. The PA tried to exclude as many Black women as possible as well while the defense tried to exclude White women. But for both, males were dismissed first. I don't know what the eventual verdict was, as the defense eventually excused me (a White male), but you didn't need to be genius to see how both attorneys were jockeying for the "best" (ie less than impartial) jury to favor their side.
Peremptory challenges are a necessary part of the system but I don't know how the abuse of them can reasonably be ended.
Peremptory challenges are a necessary part of the system but I don't know how the abuse of them can reasonably be ended.
26
I'm confused by your post. So were the only people left on the jury Hispanic or Asian? Sounds like every other category was excluded.
Dear John Grisham, please comment on this column. Your books have taught us many terrible and wonderful things about jury selection. Discriminatory jury selection, which still abounds in Southern States, is intolerable.
9
Nan,
Agreed on Grisham. Agreed on the terrible things that go on. Disagree they happen only in the Deep South. The North, West, and Midwest are no better.
Agreed on Grisham. Agreed on the terrible things that go on. Disagree they happen only in the Deep South. The North, West, and Midwest are no better.
12
Discrimination doesn`t stop at the Mason-Dixon line it is just more blatantly used south of the line to control the outcome of Justice and hence control of the non white populace. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it`s a duck and so our system of Justice for non whites is just Quackery.
28
Discrimination is nationwide and I'd point you to Oregon if you want to see racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and unthinking ignorance in daily action. They seem to think that smiling and technical language hides it.
1
With the number of blacks being shot by white policemen you cannot help but think of bias against them on a jury.
In some ways I think a jury system could be improved by having set standards of education of both blacks and whites on the jury.
This not only applies to the US but all countries.
Deep down we are all human and it is very hard to say truthfully that each and every one of us are COMPLETELY unbiased for whatever reason.
Appearance, religion, race, colour, speech, manner of address or presentation etc etc can all have an effect on a jury either if you are in the jury or being prosecuted.
There was a time when a policeman's word was highly respected and taken as truth but events in the US and other countries change this perception.
Now if Morgan Freeman, a respected black actor was foreman of a jury would he not wield more negative or positive influence on the jury proper with his opinions..??
Everything depends on trust and perception and Truth can be distorted.
The jury system is not perfect because people are not...and there is yet no better system.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
In some ways I think a jury system could be improved by having set standards of education of both blacks and whites on the jury.
This not only applies to the US but all countries.
Deep down we are all human and it is very hard to say truthfully that each and every one of us are COMPLETELY unbiased for whatever reason.
Appearance, religion, race, colour, speech, manner of address or presentation etc etc can all have an effect on a jury either if you are in the jury or being prosecuted.
There was a time when a policeman's word was highly respected and taken as truth but events in the US and other countries change this perception.
Now if Morgan Freeman, a respected black actor was foreman of a jury would he not wield more negative or positive influence on the jury proper with his opinions..??
Everything depends on trust and perception and Truth can be distorted.
The jury system is not perfect because people are not...and there is yet no better system.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
2
Standards of education? Jim Crow in action. Lets see, destroy our public education system and disenfranchise a large segment of the population from being on a Jury or even voting. Just more Jim Crow.
18
Have you checked statistics? You specifically mentioned being shot by white policemen, the death statistics don't distinguish between whether the police officer was white, black, or Hispanic, or Asian. Remember when a black person is killed by police it makes national news, when I white person is killed by police it never makes it beyond the local newspaper. Understand sensation is not reflective of real situation based on full amount of data. Last death by police officer in my city was a white female, probably mentally ill, never made it beyond local news. Yes, black people are killed more frequently by police - at about twice the rate of their percentage of the population - so yes it is too high, yes it is troubling - but it is not what you insinuate in your opening sentence. Death by police officer is not one of the top causes of death for African Americans.
2
These details regarding Foster vs. Chatman remind me of sage wisdom from my rural Southern upbringing:
“For whites, the courthouse is where justice is dispensed; for blacks, it is where justice is DISPENSED WITH!”
It seems that the cycle is traveled anew.
“For whites, the courthouse is where justice is dispensed; for blacks, it is where justice is DISPENSED WITH!”
It seems that the cycle is traveled anew.
12
Not anew but like a rolling stone traveling downhill.
2
Juries are selected for bias and in my experience, education is a red flag.
I've served on jury duty 5 times, and been disqualified during voie dire. Each time the lawyers made their decision after I explained my educational background which includes undergrad and masters degrees at Ivy League schools.
My guess is they didn't want someone who looks deeper than the the emotional arguments they would make to spin the evidence. Chances are they also didn't want a 12 angry men situation where an educated invidividual shapes the discussion during deliberations with intellect and logic.
I've served on jury duty 5 times, and been disqualified during voie dire. Each time the lawyers made their decision after I explained my educational background which includes undergrad and masters degrees at Ivy League schools.
My guess is they didn't want someone who looks deeper than the the emotional arguments they would make to spin the evidence. Chances are they also didn't want a 12 angry men situation where an educated invidividual shapes the discussion during deliberations with intellect and logic.
133
I agree with Matt. I also have been struck from juries during the voir dire proceedings. I asked myself why - was it because of my Ivy League education? Being a former senior executive of a multi-million dollar company? Being a priest and thus possibly a "soft touch"? Being gay and thus suspect of being suspicious of the legal system?
My guess, like Matt, is that any of the above would knock you out of the box. Most prosecutors want average "go along - get along" jurors who share the fears of the larger community however irrational or prejudicial they might be.
My guess, like Matt, is that any of the above would knock you out of the box. Most prosecutors want average "go along - get along" jurors who share the fears of the larger community however irrational or prejudicial they might be.
38
Agreed. The one time I served on a jury it was clear neither side especially wanted me because of my educational level. But they had already shrunk the pool so that they had few choices left and they were stuck with me. (It was a civil case and settled after one day of testimony, so we didn't get to deliberate.)
6
As an attorney, I would avoid jurors who believed they were so smart no lawyer would select them.
4
Why isn't there more regulation and oversight of prosecutors?
9
There is regulation and oversight, but unfortunately its done by otherLawyers. Physician heal thyself.
2
No, the regulation of prosecutors is left up to the Judges, most of who were prosecutors or cops before they became judges.
2
"Why isn't there more regulation and oversight of prosecutors?"
For one thing, I bet that a *lot* more legislators and appellate-court judges used to be prosecutors than used to be defense lawyers. And of course if you're an elected official you have to live in constant terror of being labeled "soft on crime" in any of its variants.
For one thing, I bet that a *lot* more legislators and appellate-court judges used to be prosecutors than used to be defense lawyers. And of course if you're an elected official you have to live in constant terror of being labeled "soft on crime" in any of its variants.
2
"We recognize, and refuse to condone, the blatant unconstitutionality of the prosecutorial misconduct in this case."
Where are the deeper questions?
Why don't we call this bigotry? Who has asked, by brief and in public forum, how such a prosecutor gets elected or hired?
What if this prosecutor's sensibility - even if patterned within an "honorable" and "zealous" advocate's courtroom maneuvers - reflects the prosecutor's management, or reflects a significant fraction of the community or of the jury pool?
Where were the voices against intolerance at the North Carolina workshop? Would it be fair to suggest that some fraction of the attendees were squirming in their seats, but failed to rise up and say: "This is wrong"?
Does anyone really believe that the Judge didn't notice the quirky statistics developing in front of him as the jury strikes fell, the qualified jury pool grew? Others there, the jury pool, the press, the courtroom hangers-on, not one soul noticed, a small hair raised, an unsettled feeling, a breached sense of right and wrong poised at decision trees felled by the players before them? None noticed? None saw how others noticed?
Only a lone defense attorney's objection, a brief phrase which triggered a path to the Supreme Court? Only -one- voice, none others, nearly contemporaneously, assertive, and indignant to say: "You, and you, there, why aren't you on your feet and saying something?"
Something broader is wrong, here.
John Ruskin
New Orleans, LA
Where are the deeper questions?
Why don't we call this bigotry? Who has asked, by brief and in public forum, how such a prosecutor gets elected or hired?
What if this prosecutor's sensibility - even if patterned within an "honorable" and "zealous" advocate's courtroom maneuvers - reflects the prosecutor's management, or reflects a significant fraction of the community or of the jury pool?
Where were the voices against intolerance at the North Carolina workshop? Would it be fair to suggest that some fraction of the attendees were squirming in their seats, but failed to rise up and say: "This is wrong"?
Does anyone really believe that the Judge didn't notice the quirky statistics developing in front of him as the jury strikes fell, the qualified jury pool grew? Others there, the jury pool, the press, the courtroom hangers-on, not one soul noticed, a small hair raised, an unsettled feeling, a breached sense of right and wrong poised at decision trees felled by the players before them? None noticed? None saw how others noticed?
Only a lone defense attorney's objection, a brief phrase which triggered a path to the Supreme Court? Only -one- voice, none others, nearly contemporaneously, assertive, and indignant to say: "You, and you, there, why aren't you on your feet and saying something?"
Something broader is wrong, here.
John Ruskin
New Orleans, LA
4
Our Supreme Court has ruled that all white juries for an African American defendants is permissible. This does take in effect the inherent bias of most white against African Americans, which has been proven. I have never seen of heard of an all African American jury sitting in judgement of a white defendant.
I also remember the Rodney King trial where they moved the trial to Simi Valley and had an all white jury that acquitted all officers of any wrong doing.
Linda Greenhouse pointed out this heinous procedure in her Aug 6, 2015 article in the Times, about a black teenager, Timothy Foster. This is an excellent article that folks should read.
I also remember the Rodney King trial where they moved the trial to Simi Valley and had an all white jury that acquitted all officers of any wrong doing.
Linda Greenhouse pointed out this heinous procedure in her Aug 6, 2015 article in the Times, about a black teenager, Timothy Foster. This is an excellent article that folks should read.
15
This is very informative, thank you for sharing
1
"Inherent bias"? Ever stop to question your rather presumptive thinking?
1
Actually, the Foster case is what is driving this op ed and another article in the Times today. Timothy Foster beat and raped an old white woman, stole her stuff, and killed her. This is a fact and it was supported by his black girl friend. Copious evidence was found in his home at the time. He should have been found guilty and I'm glad he was. Don't really care about the race of the jury in this case or any other case. If a black man cannot get one person on a jury in 2015 to vote innocent, regardless of the jury's race, then perhaps he isn't innocent.
We allow attorneys far too much latitude in selecting jurors. Apart from medical reasons or a relationship to one of the parties, there should be no reason for a juror chosen by chance not to serve. "A jury of your peers" not not mean you have a constitutional right to shape a sympathetic jury.
6
I've picked many juries as a criminal defense attorney. I've always looked for people who will try their hardest to be fair, to not automatically believe the police just because they are police. and who believe that defendants have a right to a fair trial.
5
Juries should always reflect the population of the area the crime occurred in.
I'm a Baltimore City resident. Jury duty for city residents is one day or one trial, and you can be called every year. I've gone about 30 times. The last jury selection I was in was for a homicide trial. The defendants were 2 black men, early 20's. During selection, not only was every non black juror struck, but also every black female and every black male over age 40 or so. I guess it wound up a jury of their peers. But with no women, elderly, or White, Hispanic or Asians seated, it wasn't representative of the people in the city where the crime was committed. As I was not on the jury, I don't know the outcome of the trial. But as a resident of the city, I wonder if it was fair to the victim's neighborhood, which has a wider range of ages and races.
I'm a Baltimore City resident. Jury duty for city residents is one day or one trial, and you can be called every year. I've gone about 30 times. The last jury selection I was in was for a homicide trial. The defendants were 2 black men, early 20's. During selection, not only was every non black juror struck, but also every black female and every black male over age 40 or so. I guess it wound up a jury of their peers. But with no women, elderly, or White, Hispanic or Asians seated, it wasn't representative of the people in the city where the crime was committed. As I was not on the jury, I don't know the outcome of the trial. But as a resident of the city, I wonder if it was fair to the victim's neighborhood, which has a wider range of ages and races.
38
If we honor the Constitution, the Pre Amble states..
We must have a jury of our peers for All Americans..
We must have a jury of our peers for All Americans..
1
There is a reason why African Americans make up 40% of the 2.3 million Americans imprisoned while making up a mere 13.2% of Americans. There is a reason why 40 % of Americans on death row are black and 80 % of them are there for killing a white person. America has 25% of the planets prisoners with only 5% of Earth's people. For decades more than twice as many white people have been arrested for all categories of crime as compared to blacks. More whites are arrested for each specific type of crime as well except for gambling and robbery. Only 5% of murders are interracial and about evenly distributed between the races. Arrests are not random events. But blacks are persecuted and whites get a pass.
Larry D. Thompson was and still is way more qualified to be on the Supreme Court as a black conservative Republican than is Clarence Thomas. This opinion piece is significant and welcomed.
Larry D. Thompson was and still is way more qualified to be on the Supreme Court as a black conservative Republican than is Clarence Thomas. This opinion piece is significant and welcomed.
11
The author is ignoring another issue: blacks seek to be excluded from juries. At the outset of a case when the judge asks the jury pool if there are any who cannot serve for one reason or another, blacks are often first in line to seek an exclusion. I'm certain there is no research on the reasons given to be excused, although I suspect being the sole source of income or caretakers for a family would be high on the list. But often the attorneys are left with very few blacks in the jury pool even before the Batson challenges.
11
And where did you get your statistics from? Obviously, you've done extensive research in this area, otherwise you would have not been able to provide such a well developed concept. Enlighten all of us!
2
Georgia elects is Supreme Court justices. There is no way anyone having to face a white electorate in the South will do anything that can be perceived to hamper law enforcement. The Georgia Supreme Court will take the attitude of the US Supreme Court and refuse accept the reality of racism.
6
Was Timothy Foster actually guilty of the crime? Apparently, he confessed to beating, sexually assaulting, and then strangling an elderly white woman to death. He was caught because his live-in girlfriend turned him in after he threatened her - and the victim's possessions were discovered in his possession and that of his sisters.
It would seem that Foster was guilty - and it's rather disgusting that the author neglects to mention this fact, yet uses the jury selection to demonstrate his thesis.
It would seem that Foster was guilty - and it's rather disgusting that the author neglects to mention this fact, yet uses the jury selection to demonstrate his thesis.
25
It is equally disgusting you ignore the studies cited by the author indicating the clear racist bias in jury selection and its consequences. Those studies were scientific and not anecdotal which is what you are relying on to attempt to undercut the articles main thesis.
20
why does the race of the victim matter? never mind....
A very funny Irish stand-up comic whose first tour of the US resulted in some encounters with police because of a certain level of public inebriation (not so unusual in Ireland) talks in one of his routines about the "magic" of whiteness in the USA. This is just another example of magical whiteness: whiteness gives an automatic level of privilege in every single situation, whether it is employment, education, or respect by keepers of the law.
I know that there are readers who will scoff at this idea, but experiments in employment applications where the identical CV is sent under a usually-white name and a probably-black name result in the CV under the probably-black name being rejected, but the "white" name being accepted for an interview belie white people's claims that there is no discrimination, or that reverse discrimination exists to the detriment of white opportunity.
There are three things that provide absolute privilege in this country: whiteness, maleness, and money. If you have the whole hat-trick, you are supremely privileged. Two out of three, you are in great shape. One out of three: that's where the magic of whiteness really comes in. Wealthy people of color are more likely to be yanked from their cars than wealthy white people. Full stop.
Jury selection, like all judicial choices, should be made at the point of competence. Race, gender, sexual orientation, political attitudes: none should be considered grounds for failing to seat a potential juror.
I know that there are readers who will scoff at this idea, but experiments in employment applications where the identical CV is sent under a usually-white name and a probably-black name result in the CV under the probably-black name being rejected, but the "white" name being accepted for an interview belie white people's claims that there is no discrimination, or that reverse discrimination exists to the detriment of white opportunity.
There are three things that provide absolute privilege in this country: whiteness, maleness, and money. If you have the whole hat-trick, you are supremely privileged. Two out of three, you are in great shape. One out of three: that's where the magic of whiteness really comes in. Wealthy people of color are more likely to be yanked from their cars than wealthy white people. Full stop.
Jury selection, like all judicial choices, should be made at the point of competence. Race, gender, sexual orientation, political attitudes: none should be considered grounds for failing to seat a potential juror.
12
This is a thorough analysis of society in America. My parents where devoted Voters believing in the power of representation in the polls. They where never called to serve on jury duty. I have voted every election since I was sixteen years old : my 3 siblings and myself have 4 post graduate degrees between us, Never called for Jury Duty. But let one of us have problems with non violent, non drug related yet financial deprecation problems and your hunted down like vermin and ruined. This comes from the point of view of a Black Family with White Bloodlines (Because they have always utilized their Privilege to Bed Us without Wedding Us) whom actually get up every morning believing in the words of the Pre Amble : We Hold these Truths to be self evident, that All Men & Women are created equal. The Most Inportant and enduring Documents where drawn up during the Colonization of American where done so By White Men for the preservation and welfare of White Men......even though they continue to procreate with all sectors of minority's women without responsibility. Next time we should speak in the overwhelming Billions of uncollected child support where profession white males are the toughest sector to collect from and too many are never caught.
Amen. I completely agree with the inherent racism in our jury system. There is not just one single story. Many of us have a story to tell.
I live in DC and was on a jury when our city used to be predominantly African American. I was on a case where a young African-American woman was suing a white Jewish doctor. As the lawyers selected the jury there were two factors that seemed most important: choosing other African-Americans and having the experience of suing a doctor.
The jury was stacked with elderly African-American neighbors. I was the only non-African American, but I was selected because I had a family member who had sued a doctor before (A surgeon had left an instrument in my relative's body and it almost killed him several times as he would faint while driving.). However, this case was about a boil on her arm.
The doctor's took one look at the jury and settled the case after lunch. That's all it took -- they just needed to see the races of the jurors.
Wow, is that what we fought for?
The whole thing was sad. It was about race. The lawsuit seemed frivolous; appeared like a money grab... AND a doctor's career was ruined.
The main takeaway for me was: our system is flawed and the American jury system is about race, and revenge, and shame, etc. Soon after came the OJ trial. Kinda makes you empathize with the grumpy old white men.
I live in DC and was on a jury when our city used to be predominantly African American. I was on a case where a young African-American woman was suing a white Jewish doctor. As the lawyers selected the jury there were two factors that seemed most important: choosing other African-Americans and having the experience of suing a doctor.
The jury was stacked with elderly African-American neighbors. I was the only non-African American, but I was selected because I had a family member who had sued a doctor before (A surgeon had left an instrument in my relative's body and it almost killed him several times as he would faint while driving.). However, this case was about a boil on her arm.
The doctor's took one look at the jury and settled the case after lunch. That's all it took -- they just needed to see the races of the jurors.
Wow, is that what we fought for?
The whole thing was sad. It was about race. The lawsuit seemed frivolous; appeared like a money grab... AND a doctor's career was ruined.
The main takeaway for me was: our system is flawed and the American jury system is about race, and revenge, and shame, etc. Soon after came the OJ trial. Kinda makes you empathize with the grumpy old white men.
19
The much touted perception that a Black Juror will more likely find a Black Defendant Not Guilty or that a White Juror will more likely find a Black Defendant Guilty is nothing more than a perception. In my limited practice of criminal defense, I dreaded more "half-learned" Black Jurors in trials involving Black defendants, many a times, these Jurors (to me) acted as if they were "exceptional" and voted against acquittal when (in one case) the 11 other jurors were for acquittal! I believe a sincere and well prepared defense, and the faith in the good judgment of the jurors basic sense of decency and fair play play a more vital role in any criminal defense than any "color" of the skins of the Jurors!
1
I am a woman of Italian heritage who is often mistaken for Native American here in Montana, quite often in ways that are openly racist. We live outside the borders of a large reservation in a somewhat upper middle class area. My husband and I are often called for jury duty in our county. While my husband has been seated on many juries over the last 30+ years, I have only served on one. In fact, I am quite often dismissed early in the process and if a defendant is Native American, and a disproportionate number are, I know it will be a short day. Now I have no proof that I am being discriminated against, but I did once have a prosecutor ask me with some disbelief if my general address was correct. I am educated, well spoken and dress conservatively. Again, no proof but I am 99% sure my looks, which for many people here in Montana seem to indicate Native heritage, automatically disqualifies me for jury duty. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked a member of the judiciary if they see race, their answer here would be no. But.
6
Mark's better half...
Is this news? My husband got invited to jury duty in Florida for a financial fraud case. He had important work deadlines and he was running fever. But they would not give him the right to be absent for that particular case. But when he spoke to five Blacks, most of them with graduate degrees, includinog, one with an MBAs, he found that they were denied the right to sit on the jury even when they had shown up for jury work and wanted to sit on the jury. This was not in 1869, 1889, 1939, 1959, 1979 or 1999...It was in 2009. US is behind in many things by over a century. And they complain about casteism in India...which was way more muted than "slavery and racism".
(People don't marry outside their castes in India, including people from so-called lower castes. But when it comes to justice...everyone is equally mistreated by a corrupt Indian legal system: including people of all castes, the poor, the working class and the middle class...except for the rich, the powerful and connected). In the US Brown or Black poor people, the middle class, women and immigrants have to deal with "racism, classism and sexism". Think of the stress.
Is this news? My husband got invited to jury duty in Florida for a financial fraud case. He had important work deadlines and he was running fever. But they would not give him the right to be absent for that particular case. But when he spoke to five Blacks, most of them with graduate degrees, includinog, one with an MBAs, he found that they were denied the right to sit on the jury even when they had shown up for jury work and wanted to sit on the jury. This was not in 1869, 1889, 1939, 1959, 1979 or 1999...It was in 2009. US is behind in many things by over a century. And they complain about casteism in India...which was way more muted than "slavery and racism".
(People don't marry outside their castes in India, including people from so-called lower castes. But when it comes to justice...everyone is equally mistreated by a corrupt Indian legal system: including people of all castes, the poor, the working class and the middle class...except for the rich, the powerful and connected). In the US Brown or Black poor people, the middle class, women and immigrants have to deal with "racism, classism and sexism". Think of the stress.
5
Tough issue. The 6th amendment says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State " Question is how do you get an impartial jury ? A study by Duke University (see link) shows that black jurors are about 16% less likely to convict a criminal defendant than a white juror. The article highlights attempts to prosecutors to excuse blacks from jury service. But defense attorneys are just as bad by trying to excuse white jurors. It's hard to tell what's impartial ? Any way you do it, you are going to either favor the prosecution or the defense given our bias.
5
I know that millions of white Americans are very tired of hearing about racism and the problems it causes in our society. In the current saying, I get that. But, just for a moment, consider this...
What if white America woke up tomorrow and all of the juries, all of the judges, all of the lawyers and most of the police officers were black. What if white people were the minority. What if blacks went around telling each other how bad whites are, how they can't be trusted, are lazy, etc. What if the laws had all been written by blacks and many of them continued from a time of harsh racial discrimination.
The white population would not stand for it for a week. Accustomed to having a comfortable, if not always preferred, status, there would be a mighty revolution born within days. It would seem intolerable for people to be judged by others who had little or no sympathetic understanding and who had been raised, or at least socialized around, those who believed that whites did not possess full humanity. If you can imagine such a situation, then you can get a glimpse of how the world looks to many of your fellow citizens. You can begin to understand how unfair the judicial system is, top to bottom, to black Americans.
What if white America woke up tomorrow and all of the juries, all of the judges, all of the lawyers and most of the police officers were black. What if white people were the minority. What if blacks went around telling each other how bad whites are, how they can't be trusted, are lazy, etc. What if the laws had all been written by blacks and many of them continued from a time of harsh racial discrimination.
The white population would not stand for it for a week. Accustomed to having a comfortable, if not always preferred, status, there would be a mighty revolution born within days. It would seem intolerable for people to be judged by others who had little or no sympathetic understanding and who had been raised, or at least socialized around, those who believed that whites did not possess full humanity. If you can imagine such a situation, then you can get a glimpse of how the world looks to many of your fellow citizens. You can begin to understand how unfair the judicial system is, top to bottom, to black Americans.
15
There is a simple, although not perfect, solution to this problem. There is no perfect solution. The best answer is to forgo trying to figure out what's in the head of lawyers exercising peremptory challenges, but to sharply limit the number of such challenges, to maybe one or two per trial.
4
Doug, the attorneys already have a limited number of peremptory challenges - which are challenges for which the attorney does not have to give a reason. The article is about prosecutors using fallacious challenges for cause, where the attorney has to give a more or less credible cause for challenging that potential juror. All to often the "cause" is fallacious and is based on the race of the potential juror.
It occurs to me that prosecutors recall the O. J. Simpson trial, where signs of "jury nullification" by the predominantly black jury prevailed.
That doesn't justify selection of jurors based on race, but it should be recognized as a possible risk.
That doesn't justify selection of jurors based on race, but it should be recognized as a possible risk.
9
The real issue seems to be that when the civil war ended, the negotiators put in place measure to placate the rebels; that system has worked well perhaps too well. The whole racial issue relates mainly tp the post-civil war era where the white farmers and landlords decided what is the rule and the law. Subsequent changes especially from the "Civil Rights" era did not actually remove these obstacles because Laws are human and their application is unavoidablt a Human Endeavour.. It is not going to be easy to fully place the non-whites on the same pedestal until these fundamental facts are addressed first and threat is a herculean task in a charged society. The courts could oily say what the Constitutions meant but the real meaning given to it a people issue and the laws cannot operate outside that reality because Justice is blind then maybe it doesn't need eyes afterall.
2
"That Justice is a blind goddess
Is a thing to which we blacks are wise:
Her bandage hides two festering sores
That once perhaps were eyes." (Justice - by Langston Hughes)
Is a thing to which we blacks are wise:
Her bandage hides two festering sores
That once perhaps were eyes." (Justice - by Langston Hughes)
9
Well clearly the editorial staff has never been on a NY city jury, because it couldn't be further from the truth. I have been called for jury duty three times in the city, never once have I made it past the first round. Seems all the employed white guys get left in the jury pool at the end of the week. In all cases the defendant was black. Sorry , but this is just sensationalism and stoking the embers of the NYT's reader base.
16
Try looking at our Justice system from a different location, maybe Athens (pick a state).
3
When nearly 95% of African-Americans vote for Obama and a majority of other Americans vote for his opponent, the beliefs of each group differ significantly.
When questioned for jury selection,those differing views cannot be ignored by the prosecution or the defense.
To claim that the only difference between the potential jurors is their race is nonsense.
When questioned for jury selection,those differing views cannot be ignored by the prosecution or the defense.
To claim that the only difference between the potential jurors is their race is nonsense.
7
jck, that's just foolish. President Obama could not have won the election if the majority of non blacks had voted for his opponent. African Americans only make up a little more than 13% of the population.
I support eliminating racism in jury selection, but I fail to see how this can practicably be done in the teeth of resistance by BOTH prosecutors and defense attorneys … unless some form of quota system based on the availability of black jurors in a given venue is imposed. Frankly, it seems to me that one of the last things America needs is yet one more quota system.
The examples given in this op-ed of transparently interested tests used by attorneys to limit black jurors suggests that in order to seriously limit or eradicate the practices, another layer of independent judicial review would be needed – in a justice system that already is over-burdened and extremely expensive. How realistic is such additional review?
After all, prosecutors (if not defense attorneys) already must justify to a judge why they strike a potential juror; and if judges weren’t compliant in the motivations that drive prosecutor behavior, then this wouldn’t be such a problem, at least from prosecutors. So the review would need to be auditable.
Unless the Court determines that the objective of selecting juries that are racially balanced trumps ALL other objectives, it seems to me that Foster v. Chapman may not be ruled favorably. If they do determine that this objective must be met at any cost, I can’t see another financially or logistically feasible means of securing it but to impose a quota system – and that likely would diminish the confidence attorneys, and their clients, have in juries.
The examples given in this op-ed of transparently interested tests used by attorneys to limit black jurors suggests that in order to seriously limit or eradicate the practices, another layer of independent judicial review would be needed – in a justice system that already is over-burdened and extremely expensive. How realistic is such additional review?
After all, prosecutors (if not defense attorneys) already must justify to a judge why they strike a potential juror; and if judges weren’t compliant in the motivations that drive prosecutor behavior, then this wouldn’t be such a problem, at least from prosecutors. So the review would need to be auditable.
Unless the Court determines that the objective of selecting juries that are racially balanced trumps ALL other objectives, it seems to me that Foster v. Chapman may not be ruled favorably. If they do determine that this objective must be met at any cost, I can’t see another financially or logistically feasible means of securing it but to impose a quota system – and that likely would diminish the confidence attorneys, and their clients, have in juries.
10
Richard, I think your comment misses the point and changes the question.
1
Thomas:
I think you've misread either the piece or my comment.
I think you've misread either the piece or my comment.
Say what they will, if the defendant is black the prosecutors strike as many blacks as they can from the jury. The Batson case only requires that the reason given for the strike be "race neutral'. That leads to all sorts of inane excuses from the prosecutors and is an especially annoying aspect of the criminal justice system, of which there are many annoying aspects. Batson is worse than useless and has no place in what should be a fair and just part of society.
20
Do you claim that defense attorneys behave better than prosecutors? When I was called for jury duty - both the prosecution and defense opted to get me off they jury - I guess neither figured they could predict me.
Not really, drm. The prosecutors are simply taking advantage of a bad law. Given the chance, I would probably do the same.
I've been a criminal defense attorney for 50 years, and this article omits a critical fact: Judges routinely look the other way when prosecutors improperly exclude Black jurors. Let me say it again: Judges let prosecutors get away with this disgraceful misconduct. I've seen it myself, and so has every defense attorney. Time after time the prosecutor's "race neutral" challenge is patently and absurdly false, but when the defense attorney asks the judge to require that the prosecutor explain blatant discrepancies, judges seldom do so. It's important that the reader understand the whole picture.
128
Val in Brooklyn, NY to Robert Bloom in Berkeley, CA
Thanks for the very depressing reality check.
You reminded me of the Dickens quote from Oliver Twist "the law is an ass ..."
Lousy Halloween to all of us.
Submitted 10-31-15@8:37 p.m. EST
Thanks for the very depressing reality check.
You reminded me of the Dickens quote from Oliver Twist "the law is an ass ..."
Lousy Halloween to all of us.
Submitted 10-31-15@8:37 p.m. EST
I think it's obvious that judges are part of the problem, maybe the biggest part.
Better yet, do away with the whole voir dire process; it wastes time and introduces all kinds of biases--and lawyerly shenanigans. Uniform random sampling of the population tends to give a jury whose biases cancel out; that should be sufficient, and if it is not, draw larger juries.
Furthermore, do away with deliberation, which introduces biases by bringing jurors' group dynamics into the mix. Just give each juror one vote per question to be decided, and decide what ratio of votes, and what minimum jury size, is sufficient to convict or settle civil claims.
Trials would go much faster, and results would be more accurate.
Furthermore, do away with deliberation, which introduces biases by bringing jurors' group dynamics into the mix. Just give each juror one vote per question to be decided, and decide what ratio of votes, and what minimum jury size, is sufficient to convict or settle civil claims.
Trials would go much faster, and results would be more accurate.
24
M is missing the value that deliberation brings. The ability to build on another's thought or to challenge another's premise allows for a much deeper examination of a subject than any individual can achieve alone. Each person's reasoning is tested and each person's perspective is considered. An effective group is much more than sum of its parts - which is all you get with a vote.
"Furthermore, do away with deliberation, which introduces biases by bringing jurors' group dynamics into the mix. Just give each juror one vote per question to be decided, and decide what ratio of votes, and what minimum jury size, is sufficient to convict or settle civil claims."
This is a really excellent proposal! You are absolutely right. I've never been a juror but of course I've seen such things on TV. And one thing that always struck me was that indeed, in the deliberation room, it seem that right or wrong, a certain one or two jurors will be more vocal, more persuasive. No one can deny that crowd psychology is not at play in the deliberating room. There is peer pressure, there is one or two people trying to 'make a name for themselves', people who seek the spotlight, always need to be 'right', and then others who are intimidated, shy, etc. This means that there have likely been very many decisions by jurors, that were based, not on the most correct verdict, but on which juror had the loudest voice...who was the most influential. I hate to think how many have been wrongfully convicted, but on the flip side, I hope and trust that at such moments, even the shy or intimidated jurors feel compelled to speak up, if only because they realize what a serious role every single juror plays. I guess this is why we also sometimes see 'hung juries'.
This is a really excellent proposal! You are absolutely right. I've never been a juror but of course I've seen such things on TV. And one thing that always struck me was that indeed, in the deliberation room, it seem that right or wrong, a certain one or two jurors will be more vocal, more persuasive. No one can deny that crowd psychology is not at play in the deliberating room. There is peer pressure, there is one or two people trying to 'make a name for themselves', people who seek the spotlight, always need to be 'right', and then others who are intimidated, shy, etc. This means that there have likely been very many decisions by jurors, that were based, not on the most correct verdict, but on which juror had the loudest voice...who was the most influential. I hate to think how many have been wrongfully convicted, but on the flip side, I hope and trust that at such moments, even the shy or intimidated jurors feel compelled to speak up, if only because they realize what a serious role every single juror plays. I guess this is why we also sometimes see 'hung juries'.
We all have unacknowledged and unknown biases. Does a potential juror have a child that is a police officer? That juror will find it impossible to believe that a policeman has lied, or that a defendant is telling the truth. Not consciously, but as a result of having heard the war stories of their child about all of the degenerate criminals out there and having a vague feeling that finding a defendant guilty because a police officer has lied reflects badly on police generally, and the child specifically. Extensive studies show that people ignore any evidence that contradicts their bias, no matter how strong, and hear only the evidence that confirms what they already think. Wouldn't you want to known about that potential juror's child, and would you want that person on the jury if you were on trial? Voir dire is an attempt by both parties to find out about jurors' life experiences and expose those who start the trial with a bias that is relevant to the trial, and voir dire is essential to a fair trial.
So many aspects of our criminal justice system contradicts all the American ideals we were taught in school were so superior to the rest of the world. It’s an injustice system, that is criminal in itself. Hidden, rationalized, denied, normalized.
The right to a jury trial was an achievement of modern civilization that protected citizens from arbitrary whim of dictators.
Here the elections of judges and prosecutors invites vote getting by boasting of records of convictions and sentencing. Having an underclass with a different skin color is so handy for this. In some countries judges are appointed, to keep them free of politics.
We see some faint glimmerings of reform, with the truth coming out little by little and disgust widespread now with our vast prison gulag, and ruined lives and families. The Times is a main media paper aiding reform with its articles and editorials. But there’s also still plenty of resistance. Maybe the attitudes of both political parties can eventually effect some reform. Or do we have to wait yet another hundred years?
The US needs a second Reconstruction.
The right to a jury trial was an achievement of modern civilization that protected citizens from arbitrary whim of dictators.
Here the elections of judges and prosecutors invites vote getting by boasting of records of convictions and sentencing. Having an underclass with a different skin color is so handy for this. In some countries judges are appointed, to keep them free of politics.
We see some faint glimmerings of reform, with the truth coming out little by little and disgust widespread now with our vast prison gulag, and ruined lives and families. The Times is a main media paper aiding reform with its articles and editorials. But there’s also still plenty of resistance. Maybe the attitudes of both political parties can eventually effect some reform. Or do we have to wait yet another hundred years?
The US needs a second Reconstruction.
46
Don't do the crime and you won't have to face a jury!
@Meredith NYC
I can't really say with any great certainty that the U.S. needs a "second Reconstruction", when the first one had no effect other than to usher back the same Antebellum mentality that defined the 'Old South' to begin with.
If anything, the U.S. needs to come to terms with its own historically racist past, and to re-acquaint it's citizens with the words of The Declaration of Independence. :"We hold these truths to be self evident. That ALL men are created equal....". That would not only be a good start, but a long-overdue one.
I can't really say with any great certainty that the U.S. needs a "second Reconstruction", when the first one had no effect other than to usher back the same Antebellum mentality that defined the 'Old South' to begin with.
If anything, the U.S. needs to come to terms with its own historically racist past, and to re-acquaint it's citizens with the words of The Declaration of Independence. :"We hold these truths to be self evident. That ALL men are created equal....". That would not only be a good start, but a long-overdue one.
5
The American judicial system is deeply racist and unjust. It is a system where mostly white juries seem to always give bad cops the benefit of the doubt, severely punishes black defendants, and give the rich and powerful a jail-free card most of the time. Couple that with the unconstitutional, racist, and exploitative targeting of blacks and other people of color by law enforcement, and you end up with a justice system more in tune with what you would expect in a Banana Republic than in a free and modern country.
49
I was seated on an all white jury with a very young black criminal defendant in Marin County, California in the 1990's.
The stacked jury selection was obvious to all involved but no one commented about it to the judge when he questioned the jury.
I registered a complaint to the judge regarding the county district attorney's office on a previous case and was excused from the jury by the judge due to my negative attitude.
I have no idea what the outcome was in that trial....but I left the court with a strong feeling that I would never want to be a defendant in an American jury selection system.
The stacked jury selection was obvious to all involved but no one commented about it to the judge when he questioned the jury.
I registered a complaint to the judge regarding the county district attorney's office on a previous case and was excused from the jury by the judge due to my negative attitude.
I have no idea what the outcome was in that trial....but I left the court with a strong feeling that I would never want to be a defendant in an American jury selection system.
71
Knowing what we now know about how rigged the system is in favor of prosecutors and the grim consequences that follow conviction for the rest of one's life, I honestly don't know how anyone can work as either a prosecutor or a judge with a clear conscience.
7
It's not rigged. Prosecutors won't touch a case if they cannot win it easily.
2
Select jurors by lottery, but require only a simple majority vote to convict in all case, never a unanimous verdict.
2
If the outcomes were to include an all-white jury, the charges would likely be the same. If the jury were all black, it would be considered just deserts.
3
Our criminal justice system is an adversary system.
Neither prosecution nor defense care about the truth.
They want to win and each side will use any means to do so.
If that means trying to obtain jurors who they think will be more likely to convict or acquit they will do this.
If one side thinks blacks are more likely to vote to acquit prosecutors will try to exclude blacks and the defense will try to get more blacks on the jury.
If one side thinks blacks are more likely to convict prosecutors will try to get more blacks on the jury and the defense will try to exclude blacks.
The same type of comments can be made for women on juries.
Whites and males have prejudices just as blacks and females do.
In many criminal trials jurors are being asked to decide technical questions they do not have the expertise to decide. With enough "green" you can get an expert who will testify to anything. Often an "expert" will say such and such is "consistent with" something else.
How does a jury decide. Do they look at the defendant and ask does he have shifty eyes or is he tearful at the right times etc.
In cases like this prejudices of jurors are very important and it is understandable that both sides will try to get on juries jurors whom they think have prejudices sympathetic to their side.
Whether that is ethical or appropriate is a separate discussion.
Neither prosecution nor defense care about the truth.
They want to win and each side will use any means to do so.
If that means trying to obtain jurors who they think will be more likely to convict or acquit they will do this.
If one side thinks blacks are more likely to vote to acquit prosecutors will try to exclude blacks and the defense will try to get more blacks on the jury.
If one side thinks blacks are more likely to convict prosecutors will try to get more blacks on the jury and the defense will try to exclude blacks.
The same type of comments can be made for women on juries.
Whites and males have prejudices just as blacks and females do.
In many criminal trials jurors are being asked to decide technical questions they do not have the expertise to decide. With enough "green" you can get an expert who will testify to anything. Often an "expert" will say such and such is "consistent with" something else.
How does a jury decide. Do they look at the defendant and ask does he have shifty eyes or is he tearful at the right times etc.
In cases like this prejudices of jurors are very important and it is understandable that both sides will try to get on juries jurors whom they think have prejudices sympathetic to their side.
Whether that is ethical or appropriate is a separate discussion.
12
Seems like a slim chance for justice if the system can be so manipulated.
2
Amen! As a defense lawyer, there is no excuse for excluding potential jurors based on the color of their skin but that's exactly what is taking place across the country. It's yet another example of America's unjust judicial system. This has to end!
64
Right, as a lawyer you should select jurors based on their presumed bias in favor of your client regardless of the color of their skin -- unless of course the racial bias may work in your favor. It is all about winning, no?
1
Pick an area of life and racism is rampant in it. Black Lives Matter and the workgroups within it come at a time when America's institutions are on the brink of failure due to the combination of corruption, wide economic deprivation, and political and racial polarization and the rise of the police state. It also comes at a time when America's middle class has been battered, especially in the last economic downturn, with an insufficient recovery.
We find ourselves, again, in a time similar to the late 60's when Martin Luther King set about to join America's poor whites and poor blacks to demand economic, political, and racial justice. We have two strong political movements now in Black Lives Matter and in Bernie Sanders' campaign for a political revolution.
A nation based on oppression cannot thrive. A nation based on corruption cannot succeed. A nation based on equality for some cannot survive.
We need to finish what King started. We must come to terms with our past, atone for it, and make sure we never again repeat history.
---
My riff on Martin Luther King's Three Evils of Society Speech
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/04/mlks-message-to-blacklivesmatter-moralm...
We find ourselves, again, in a time similar to the late 60's when Martin Luther King set about to join America's poor whites and poor blacks to demand economic, political, and racial justice. We have two strong political movements now in Black Lives Matter and in Bernie Sanders' campaign for a political revolution.
A nation based on oppression cannot thrive. A nation based on corruption cannot succeed. A nation based on equality for some cannot survive.
We need to finish what King started. We must come to terms with our past, atone for it, and make sure we never again repeat history.
---
My riff on Martin Luther King's Three Evils of Society Speech
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/04/mlks-message-to-blacklivesmatter-moralm...
51
There is no way to atone. None. The dead cannot be brought back. Years spent unjustly behind bars will never be recovered. There is no recompense.
No one wants to admit or accept that "separate but equal" is viable, has a chance, should even be discussed or will ever be accepted by anyone, but until actual equality is achieved, which in my thought may never occur, we will wrestle with this however untenable problem knowing only that men, women and children of color will continue to suffer and die.
Actual equality is not something any legislature can enact as the laws already on the books and their avoidance by skilled, obtuse or simply ignorant people makes evident.
Forty acres and a mule may sound quaint, simplistic, and racist, but my sense is many citizens of color would jump at the chance to escape the spiritual death our white culture has brought them.
This of course will never be implemented and we will go on pretending to struggle with the thought a solution is possible, but a people who's ancestors' enslavement was justified through an acceptance of mental denigration which is still prevalent in many white minds, have little chance of being accepted as equal by the most ignorant whites or superior in anything, but sports.
Factually I have no hope there will ever be a change in our attitude. We are a frightened and ignorant people who avoid reality, need to look down on, if not kick someone and our black citizenry is highly visible.
No one wants to admit or accept that "separate but equal" is viable, has a chance, should even be discussed or will ever be accepted by anyone, but until actual equality is achieved, which in my thought may never occur, we will wrestle with this however untenable problem knowing only that men, women and children of color will continue to suffer and die.
Actual equality is not something any legislature can enact as the laws already on the books and their avoidance by skilled, obtuse or simply ignorant people makes evident.
Forty acres and a mule may sound quaint, simplistic, and racist, but my sense is many citizens of color would jump at the chance to escape the spiritual death our white culture has brought them.
This of course will never be implemented and we will go on pretending to struggle with the thought a solution is possible, but a people who's ancestors' enslavement was justified through an acceptance of mental denigration which is still prevalent in many white minds, have little chance of being accepted as equal by the most ignorant whites or superior in anything, but sports.
Factually I have no hope there will ever be a change in our attitude. We are a frightened and ignorant people who avoid reality, need to look down on, if not kick someone and our black citizenry is highly visible.
2
Ian,
When you have no hope, you stop fighting. When you stop fighting, you've lost.
I'm not willing to lose.
When you have no hope, you stop fighting. When you stop fighting, you've lost.
I'm not willing to lose.
6
How America Sees Racism in Jury Selection (and everything else).
8
@ AACNY — Do you •really• believe that racism is non-existent, for practical purposes, in today’s America? I know for a fact that it most certainly •does• persist in today’s America. And it’s not hard to detect it. All I have to do is listen to what other white people say, when blacks or other minorities aren’t in the room. (At least, when they •think• minorities aren’t around!)
The racism I hear doesn’t come from all white people — not even from most, by a good margin. But you hear it from a •lot• of white people, and they hold those views with great conviction, and little apparent shame.
Your boilerplate denials that these problems are real, cannot be taken seriously. Those denials can arise only out of a deep foolishness, or out of a cynical determination to let nothing — and certainly not reality — undermine even one scintilla of white privilege, and black subjugation, in our society.
— Brian
The racism I hear doesn’t come from all white people — not even from most, by a good margin. But you hear it from a •lot• of white people, and they hold those views with great conviction, and little apparent shame.
Your boilerplate denials that these problems are real, cannot be taken seriously. Those denials can arise only out of a deep foolishness, or out of a cynical determination to let nothing — and certainly not reality — undermine even one scintilla of white privilege, and black subjugation, in our society.
— Brian
6
You really don't have to look far to find it, and if you can't see that, well, I guess you're part of the problem
4
pmhswe Penn State University:
I would ask you this question; Do you really believe that questioning charges of racism is tantamount to believing racism doesn't exist?
There are times when it's important to challenge charges of racism, as when the government intervenes to impose outcomes on everyone. Not every charge of racism is justified.
That's not foolishness. That's critical thinking.
I would ask you this question; Do you really believe that questioning charges of racism is tantamount to believing racism doesn't exist?
There are times when it's important to challenge charges of racism, as when the government intervenes to impose outcomes on everyone. Not every charge of racism is justified.
That's not foolishness. That's critical thinking.
3
Mr. Thompson is a bi-wig Republican lawyer. He has held high positions in government and in white shoe law firms. It is unclear to me that he has any first hand knowledge of the down and dirty courtroom.
There is no question that prosecutors repeatedly use peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors who are black. When they do so they are generally required to justify their strike to the judge. I was a prosecutor for 20 years and I never knew a colleague who routinely lied to the judge. Any who do that -- and I don't doubt that there are some -- should be disbarred.
But mostly I'm writing to explain how things really work, contrary to Mr. Thompson's simplistic view. Prosecutors represent the government and are rightfully barred from discriminating. By contrast, defense attorneys -- who get more challenges than prosecutors -- are free to strike whoever they want for whatever reason they want. If they don't like blacks, if they don't like women, if they don't like gays, they can strike them as they please. And that is the way it should be because their clients are private citizens who have the right to hate whoever they like. My simple point is that the system is as it should be. And the system is not pretty. Bad prosecutors need to be weeded out. Bad defendants have the right to turn your stomach, and they often do.
There is no question that prosecutors repeatedly use peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors who are black. When they do so they are generally required to justify their strike to the judge. I was a prosecutor for 20 years and I never knew a colleague who routinely lied to the judge. Any who do that -- and I don't doubt that there are some -- should be disbarred.
But mostly I'm writing to explain how things really work, contrary to Mr. Thompson's simplistic view. Prosecutors represent the government and are rightfully barred from discriminating. By contrast, defense attorneys -- who get more challenges than prosecutors -- are free to strike whoever they want for whatever reason they want. If they don't like blacks, if they don't like women, if they don't like gays, they can strike them as they please. And that is the way it should be because their clients are private citizens who have the right to hate whoever they like. My simple point is that the system is as it should be. And the system is not pretty. Bad prosecutors need to be weeded out. Bad defendants have the right to turn your stomach, and they often do.
13
Mr. Prosecutor, please spare us; the numbers don't lie. The social, political and economic injustices historically perpetrated against African Americans, including by the justice system, by the states enumerated speaks volumes. I would suggest less time in the law library and more time reviewing our social and political history and its impact on how justice is meted out to African Americans.
32
"By contrast, defense attorneys...are free to strike whoever they want for whatever reason they want. If they don't like blacks...they can strike them as they please."
As a prosecutor you should be aware of the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Georgia v. McCollum which prohibits defendants as well as prosecutors from using peremptory challenges based on race. In light of J.E.B. v. Alabama in 1994, this is probably true of discrimination based on gender as well. I don't think the Court has rules on discrimination against gays in the use of peremptories.
As a prosecutor you should be aware of the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Georgia v. McCollum which prohibits defendants as well as prosecutors from using peremptory challenges based on race. In light of J.E.B. v. Alabama in 1994, this is probably true of discrimination based on gender as well. I don't think the Court has rules on discrimination against gays in the use of peremptories.
16
The first thing prosecutors do is make sure very few cases ever make it to trial by using plea bargaining. Don't want the plea? If you can't afford bail, and many can't, then you sit in an extremely violent jail for six months to several years. If you make it through that ordeal, you have a 5% chance of winning in court and those who lose in the courtroom face the wrath of the prosecutor and probably judge too for daring to exercise a basic right. Taking the plea might have been five years. Going to trial and losing might be twenty or even life. Our system of justice is an international embarrassment. It's bad for everyone (but prosecutors) but blacks get the worst of it. They are arrested more frequently than whites, they are prosecuted more aggressively, and they receive longer sentences. Everyone knows this. The wasting of black lives in this fear panicked society is a career move for prosecutors who want to appear to be tough on crime to move up the ladder. Why, by the way, would a prosecutor want to strike a black juror? It's because there is a much greater chance that a black juror knows how rigged the game is. As prosecutors routinely and casually call for jail and prison sentences for even trifling peccadilloes and use plea bargains to drive up conviction rates close to 100%, I would be willing to guess that most black folks would not wish the fate of prison or jail even on those who perpetrate this wickedness.
6
Ask any public defender in any state and they will tell you that this happens in almost every case. What ever the ethnic, racial or religious the defendant is the prosecutor will try and keep jurors with similar background off the jury.
54
Careful. Acting in self-interest (or in the client's interest) is now a punishable offense.
8
Gerry,
There is a distinction you fail to make. In an America where Blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate than whites, with far higher rates of false convictions, with conscious and subconscious bias rising and white juries almost always willing to convict Blacks more than they are to give them the benefit of the doubt, and prosecutors taking full advantage, making sure juries are diverse is a must, not to mention the fact that it fulfills a requirement for 'jury of one's peers.' For as long as our concept of race and laws are what they are and racism is the way it is, fairness will always have to include equal representation on juries.
To say that when a Black defendant's jury is being picked, that defendant is being treated like anyone else is a falsehood. The truth is that that defendant is being treated like a Black defendant, and that is institutional racism of the highest order and conscious bias on the part of prosecutors. This is how most horrific injustices are perpetrated and perpetuated.
There is a distinction you fail to make. In an America where Blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate than whites, with far higher rates of false convictions, with conscious and subconscious bias rising and white juries almost always willing to convict Blacks more than they are to give them the benefit of the doubt, and prosecutors taking full advantage, making sure juries are diverse is a must, not to mention the fact that it fulfills a requirement for 'jury of one's peers.' For as long as our concept of race and laws are what they are and racism is the way it is, fairness will always have to include equal representation on juries.
To say that when a Black defendant's jury is being picked, that defendant is being treated like anyone else is a falsehood. The truth is that that defendant is being treated like a Black defendant, and that is institutional racism of the highest order and conscious bias on the part of prosecutors. This is how most horrific injustices are perpetrated and perpetuated.
95
Ask any prosecutor and he will tell you that most public defenders are good lawyers and don't lie like that.
1
A lawyer is obligated to represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law. If the lawyer feels he is more likely to gain an acquittal with the presence of more Blacks on the jury there is nothing unethical by trying to obtain the best jury possible for his client. With the same logic the prosecution has the same obligation. As long as the jury panel is selected fairly and the rules for challenges are followed, there should be no complaint from Larry D. Thompson or the Equal Justice Initiative. This attempt to influence the obligation of the attorney to work zealously is both harmful to our justice system and simple race mongering.
19
Wrong. The prosecutor has no client. He is bound to serve justice as referenced in the 6th Amendment, which guarantees an impartial jury.
4
reply toJohn a. Exnicios: The point of the Editorial is thus: Those rules you point to- AREN'T being carried out; the systematic exclusion of Blacks on juries is the problem. It just seems that for too many- the very idea that racism exists and when its immoral attributes are pointed out- far too many simply cannot accept it- then the tired and worn "counterpoint" of "race-baiting-race mongering-race card non sequitur is trotted out.
23
John, lawyers can advocate for their clients (or prosecutors for the state) only within the confines of both the letter and the spirit of the law. This column describes a clear violation of both.
6
The O.J. trial!
13
OMG, you beat me to it. 'Nuff said.
5
reply to martin Karman: ?. "The O.J. trial" is short-hand for what?
6
I thought defendants are judged by a jury of their peers?
"On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Foster v. Chatman, a case that challenges the all-too-common practice by which prosecutors deliberately exclude African-Americans from criminal juries."
Hopefully this decision will apply to the prosecution and defense. Will it?
Hopefully this decision will apply to the prosecution and defense. Will it?
3
No. Prosecutors represent the government and are constitutionally barred from discrimination through the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a fair trial. The defense are private citizens, they do not represent the state and so they can discriminate all they want. The Constitution does not bar discrimination in the criminal justice system by private individuals
4