The racial Justice act

[granfire]

Just listening with half an ear to the news, some black guy had his death penalty overturned because black jurors or rather prospects were dismissed at a rate of 3 to 1 over whites.


I suppose it's a good thing for the guy, I am wondering how that affects the system down the road.

I mean, it won't make 'race relations' any easier.
many different thoughts, so bear with me:

The possibility of a conviction or harsher sentence because the defendant is of a certain race, the majority of jurors are not
The possibility of a defendant not being convicted because the majority of jurors are of the same race.

I do believe Juror selection is the high art of a trial lawyer. get the right demographic in, keep those out that harm your case - works on both sides.

Now, will every defendant now look at the statistics on the dismissal to challenge the ruling?

Can this be claimed for a white defendant as well (let's face it, 'racial' laws don't usually include the pale faces, why else would they have to file for 'reverse discrimination'?!) ?

 

[Carol]

My fearless prediction:

This happened in the south.

Black perp killed a white victim.

amiright? Death penalty doesn't get handed out to people who kill black victims, generally speaking.

 

[granfire]

I missed (or forgot) the location, but yes, black guy killed blond white guy.

The jury of his peers would be 12 black guys.

A jury representing the cross section of the population would be maybe 30% black - depending on location, but pretty much 50% female...

Now:
Going by racial profile:
A jury with more black people would be probably more likely to not convict (as the outcry over the Martin/Zimmerman case shows, or the OJ case has proven)
The sentence was overturned on race alone, disregarding the evidence.

I am not saying it is wrong or right, I am just seeing a myriad of new problems arising.

Where the black jurors dismissed because of race or were they dismissed because they showed obvious prejudice?

 

[Wo Fat]

My fearless prediction:

This happened in the south.

Black perp killed a white victim.

amiright? Death penalty doesn't get handed out to people who kill black victims, generally speaking.

Yes, you're right. It was in North Carolina. The victim was 17 years old and White.

I had thought that striking Black people from juries was a thing of the past. But I guess the South likes its traditions. Anyway, the evidence against the killer may well warrant his conviction.

Here's a NYT article on the case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/us/north-carolina-law-used-to-set-aside-a-death-sentence.html

 

[Carol]

(psst....tried to write, but your mailbox was full...)

 

[Wo Fat]

House keeping done.

 

[granfire]

Yes, you're right. It was in North Carolina. The victim was 17 years old and White.

I had thought that striking Black people from juries was a thing of the past. But I guess the South likes its traditions. Anyway, the evidence against the killer may well warrant his conviction.

Here's a NYT article on the case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/us/north-carolina-law-used-to-set-aside-a-death-sentence.html

well, were they dismissed because of race or because of prejudice?

I think that is the point that needs looking into.

 

[Wo Fat]

well, were they dismissed because of race or because of prejudice?

I think that is the point that needs looking into.

You mean did prosecutors announce their intentions of striking prospective Black jurors? Or circulate memos to that affect? Probably not.

 

[granfire]

You mean did prosecutors announce their intentions of striking prospective Black jurors? Or circulate memos to that affect? Probably not.

No.

Where they dismissed because of skin color or because it was obvious they were not going to weigh the evidence.

You know, like white folks don't consider black guys guilty </sarcasm>

The memo is you pick jurors who make it easier to win your case.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

The memo is you pick jurors who make it easier to win your case.

Not as a comment of the merits of the appeal, but the above is pretty much the job of any trial lawyer in our adversarial system of justice.

 

[Sukerkin]

Historically speaking, if a persons race is more important to them (and to others) than their nationality then that country is in trouble.

This episode is a warning sign.

 

[Wo Fat]

No.

Where they dismissed because of skin color or because it was obvious they were not going to weigh the evidence.

You know, like white folks don't consider black guys guilty </sarcasm>

The memo is you pick jurors who make it easier to win your case.

In most states, attorneys are allowed "peremptory strikes" of a juror. Meaning, they can dismiss a juror without cause. The rest of the strikes--in the case of North Carolina--must be for some cause.

What the state of North Carolina decided was that they were no longer going to allow prosecutors' "trial strategies" to be used as a proxy for racial bias toward Black jurors.

Black and Brown jurors convict Black and Brown defendants every day. To presume otherwise is simply a pathetic way to desperately hang onto a stereotype. Even a Southern state like North Carolina finally figured that out.