Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

"One of the challenges that I think counsel recognized in this case is the racial overtones in the case. ... This is sort of the continuation of a conversation that I think will continue for a long time, with respect to this case," the judge said, but added that in Georgia, "all the defense needs to do is provide that legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, reasonably specific and related reason," for why they struck a juror and he said the defense met that burden.

Yes... racial overtones, so almost no blacks. Now can we explain why there are 11 non-Hispanic whites on the jury?

 

[thebeave]

link

"One of the challenges that I think counsel recognized in this case is the racial overtones in the case. ... This is sort of the continuation of a conversation that I think will continue for a long time, with respect to this case," the judge said, but added that in Georgia, "all the defense needs to do is provide that legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, reasonably specific and related reason," for why they struck a juror and he said the defense met that burden.

Yes... racial overtones, so almost no blacks. Now can we explain why there are 11 non-Hispanic whites on the jury?

It is a bit of a connundrum, isn't it? The white defendants are to be judged by a "jury of their peers", so wouldn't that mean the jury should be weighted towards white people?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

link

"One of the challenges that I think counsel recognized in this case is the racial overtones in the case. ... This is sort of the continuation of a conversation that I think will continue for a long time, with respect to this case," the judge said, but added that in Georgia, "all the defense needs to do is provide that legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, reasonably specific and related reason," for why they struck a juror and he said the defense met that burden.

Yes... racial overtones, so almost no blacks. Now can we explain why there are 11 non-Hispanic whites on the jury?

It is a bit of a connundrum, isn't it? The white defendants are to be judged by a "jury of their peers", so wouldn't that mean the jury should be weighted towards white people?

Not completely, no, it means the whole jury should be white males. This always worked well in the past.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AGAIN

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

"One of the challenges that I think counsel recognized in this case is the racial overtones in the case. ... This is sort of the continuation of a conversation that I think will continue for a long time, with respect to this case," the judge said, but added that in Georgia, "all the defense needs to do is provide that legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, reasonably specific and related reason," for why they struck a juror and he said the defense met that burden.

Yes... racial overtones, so almost no blacks. Now can we explain why there are 11 non-Hispanic whites on the jury?

It is a bit of a connundrum, isn't it? The white defendants are to be judged by a "jury of their peers", so wouldn't that mean the jury should be weighted towards white people?

The key word is actually "impartial", there is no statement in our Governmental Docs about "jury of their peers", but rather an "impartial jury".

And in this case, the lawyers were allowed to weigh the scale of racial balance for the white defendants over the black victim.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"The judge confirmed that racial bias played a role in the jury selection process," said Arbery family council Lee Merritt. "It’s frustrating for a family who just wants to hear – they just want a fair day in court without racial bias but its inherently built into our system. We need to continue to work to change the laws … but it’s there."

The judge denied the motion brought forth by the state to reseat some of the black jurors struck by the defense.

There were 12 qualified black jurors and the defense struck all but one of them.

The judge agreed with the prosecution that is appeared the defense was striking jurors based off of race.

But Georgia law prevents him from reseating the jurors.

The defense acknowledged the optics of this jury but says race-based decisions were not made.

Article

Interesting. Maybe they should keep potential jurors behind a screen and disguise their voices, like in a dating gameshow.

 

[thebeave]

link

"One of the challenges that I think counsel recognized in this case is the racial overtones in the case. ... This is sort of the continuation of a conversation that I think will continue for a long time, with respect to this case," the judge said, but added that in Georgia, "all the defense needs to do is provide that legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, reasonably specific and related reason," for why they struck a juror and he said the defense met that burden.

Yes... racial overtones, so almost no blacks. Now can we explain why there are 11 non-Hispanic whites on the jury?

It is a bit of a connundrum, isn't it? The white defendants are to be judged by a "jury of their peers", so wouldn't that mean the jury should be weighted towards white people?

The key word is actually "impartial", there is no statement in our Governmental Docs about "jury of their peers", but rather an "impartial jury".

And in this case, the lawyers were allowed to weigh the scale of racial balance for the white defendants over the black victim.

Are you sure about that?

Jury of Peers

Trial by a jury of one's peers refers to a trial upon competent legal testimony. A fair and impartial trial by a jury of one's peers is a sacred right guaranteed to every citizen under the laws. A citizen's right to a trial by a jury of one's peers in a criminal prosecution is guaranteed by the sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Feel free to quote that part of the Sixth Amendment.

 

[TomC]

Feel free to quote that part of the Sixth Amendment.

It's an amalgam of a couple of different parts. But it's definitely Constitutional. Check the link provided.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Feel free to quote that part of the Sixth Amendment.

It's an amalgam of a couple of different parts. But it's definitely Constitutional. Check the link provided.
Tom

I think Jimmy is quibbling over the word "peers". It is not in the 6th amendment to the US Constitution, but it would seem that a State's Constitutional language is also at play, so one would have to check. Your link gives the specific example of Virginia's constitution, which does indeed include the word "peers".

 

[blastula]

Peer doesn't mean same race though.

 

[TomC]

Feel free to quote that part of the Sixth Amendment.

It's an amalgam of a couple of different parts. But it's definitely Constitutional. Check the link provided.
Tom

I think Jimmy is quibbling over the word "peers". It is not in the 6th amendment to the US Constitution, but it would seem that a State's Constitutional language is also at play, so one would have to check. Your link gives the specific example of Virginia's constitution, which does indeed include the word "peers".

While we're on the subject of quibbling...

I'm gay. Queer as a three dollar bill. Also, rather prudish. I've never cheated on my male partner over about 30 years.

If I were being tried for a crime, would an impartial jury of my peers require a jury of prudish gay men?
How closely does the make-up of a jury need to be before it qualifies as an "impartial jury of peers"?

Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Feel free to quote that part of the Sixth Amendment.

It's an amalgam of a couple of different parts. But it's definitely Constitutional. Check the link provided.
Tom

I think Jimmy is quibbling over the word "peers". It is not in the 6th amendment to the US Constitution, but it would seem that a State's Constitutional language is also at play, so one would have to check. Your link gives the specific example of Virginia's constitution, which does indeed include the word "peers".

Well, peers means people of similar age or status, i.e. it's a distinction that the King (or bureaucratic officials) cannot arbitrarily, capriciously, inconsistently declare a verdict. The concept has its roots in the Magna Carta where centuries ago, nobility and clergy gained some protections of rights under the King...and likewise a council of Barons was a precursor to parliament. No doubt in a place like Virginia, "peers" at some point meant white male landowners, whereas today it means equal citizens. The point being that over the centuries the power of the "King" has diminished and spread across citizenry, a democratization of rights, if you will. As some people are faced with the reality of equal power and justice, they will start screaming, "PEERS MEANS WHITE PEOPLE!!!11," but it doesn't... In a modern context and in consideration of cultural shifts, subsequent Amendments regarding racial egalitarianism, and anti-discrimination laws, it means impartial citizens. That may relate to race, but it certainly doesn't imply an unfair bias due to race. That's the opposite of impartial.

 

[Politesse]

So your position is that there is no such thing as a non-peer, more or less?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So your position is that there is no such thing as a non-peer, more or less?

A non-adult. A non-citizen. Also, someone who has authority or status in the judicial process or government might be a non-peer. A trivial example of the latter would be the judge in the case.

 

[Toni]

Feel free to quote that part of the Sixth Amendment.

It's an amalgam of a couple of different parts. But it's definitely Constitutional. Check the link provided.
Tom

I think Jimmy is quibbling over the word "peers". It is not in the 6th amendment to the US Constitution, but it would seem that a State's Constitutional language is also at play, so one would have to check. Your link gives the specific example of Virginia's constitution, which does indeed include the word "peers".

While we're on the subject of quibbling...

I'm gay. Queer as a three dollar bill. Also, rather prudish. I've never cheated on my male partner over about 30 years.

If I were being tried for a crime, would an impartial jury of my peers require a jury of prudish gay men?
How closely does the make-up of a jury need to be before it qualifies as an "impartial jury of peers"?

Tom

I think that would depend on the crime you'd be accused of. Simple theft would probably not raise any questions about your sexual preferences. Possibly some other crimes could. Please note the following scenarios are entirely fictitious and not meant to have any bearing or reflection on you but are probably comprised of bits and pieces of Law and Order episodes and old soap operas and that sort of thing--very off the top of my head but also with an eye to putting a gay man in a difficult position: Suppose you were in a clandestine relationship with a closeted gay man who happened to be married and much older than you (you're 35 in this scenario). Suppose he had recently discovered that he had terminal cancer with a prognosis that likely meant a lot of pain. Over your years together, he had repeatedly promised to leave his wife for you and/or take care of you in his will. With this diagnosis, the urgency of him finally acknowledging who he is and who he loved becomes much more urgent. He promises to tell his wife that night.

The next morning he is found dead, a single gunshot to his head. Or pills if you don't like blood. At first it seems obviously a suicide but forensics indicate that he could not have shot himself. There are two prime suspects: you and the wife. The police land on you. Because considerable money is involved and the affair is revealed in the investigation. You suspect the wife but she points the finger at you: he wasn't going to leave her after all (her story). Last number dialed on his phone is yours. (I am assuming that you did not commit the crime but not sure that it matters)

How many anti-gay activists do you want on your jury? Do you hope that the jury will include evangelical pastors? Pastors' wives? Women? Men? Do you hope for a gay man who is married? Out and proud LGBTQ people?

I apologize if the scenario is in any way offensive. I was deliberately trying to make a story about a case that would likely be sensationalized and get a lot of press and stir up some deeply buried phobias and hatred.

Back to the original thread now:

The US Constitution promises an impartial jury.

 

[Tigers!]

Why does skin colour matter? Why should you, or anyone, be denied sitting on a jury just because your skin colour is different to the person beside you? This is an instance where justice should be colour-blind.
Pull 12 names out of a hat if you must. These are the first cut. Ask them is they have an financial, or otherwise, interest in the case. If N jurors fail then pull the next N names of out said hat. And keep going.
But colour is not a reason to deny a juror reason to sit.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why does skin colour matter? Why should you, or anyone, be denied sitting on a jury just because your skin colour is different to the person beside you? This is an instance where justice should be colour-blind.

It should be. In an ideal world it wouldn't matter and also I am not sure if it matters in a one-off case. The problem is that historically when we look at large statistics, we see the bias. So if we make it color-blind, then white jurors get in more often. Then, we see unfairness in large statistics. Trying to fix the problem for each and every jury seems unfair to the individuals involved who may have no biases. So then what are real solutions to the problem other than saying "America has systemic racism" and then getting yelled at because you are a reverse racialist?

 

[Tigers!]

Why does skin colour matter? Why should you, or anyone, be denied sitting on a jury just because your skin colour is different to the person beside you? This is an instance where justice should be colour-blind.

So if we make it color-blind, then white jurors get in more often. Then, we see unfairness in large statistics.

If you are area that has a majority of a certain skin colour then yes more jurors of that colour will be selected. You seem to think that is a problem when the jurors are white.
If you think that the problem is that a white juror is automatically biased against a non-white defendant (and vide-versa to stop the howls of discrimination) then you Yanks are worse off that I realised. And what if you consider that jurors can be biased against the plaintiff solely upon their colour.
Once you start forcing the makeup of juries to reflect local conditions i.e. the jury should have N% of members of a certain colour because the local community is N% of same colour then impartial justice becomes illusory.
As Toni mentioned earlier where do you draw the line? You cannot force every jury to follow some vague nebulous numerical ratio based upon an ill-defined characteristic or criteria. Justice will be lost for all.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why does skin colour matter? Why should you, or anyone, be denied sitting on a jury just because your skin colour is different to the person beside you? This is an instance where justice should be colour-blind.
Pull 12 names out of a hat if you must. These are the first cut. Ask them is they have an financial, or otherwise, interest in the case. If N jurors fail then pull the next N names of out said hat. And keep going.
But colour is not a reason to deny a juror reason to sit.

The judge said that even though he agreed the defense was likely rejecting jurors by race he was satisfied that the defense was able to give non-race reasons for rejection.

 

[Derec]

"The judge confirmed that racial bias played a role in the jury selection process," said Arbery family council Lee Merritt. "It’s frustrating for a family who just wants to hear – they just want a fair day in court without racial bias but its inherently built into our system. We need to continue to work to change the laws … but it’s there."

Did the judge say that directly or is that Lee Merrittless' interpretation? Btw, this is the same shyster who claimed that a dead teenage robber was "executed" and "not in the midst of robbery" before a video showed that indeed he tried to rob his victim before the victim pulled out his own gun and shot the little twerp. So yeah, he is a lying liar who lies.

The judge denied the motion brought forth by the state to reseat some of the black jurors struck by the defense. There were 12 qualified black jurors and the defense struck all but one of them.

Apparently some of those potential jurors knew Arbury. Others participated in pro-Arbury events. Obviously such jurors should not be seated.

Note also that a goal is a unbiased jury (as much as possible), not necessarily one that has the same makeup racial as the county as a whole. The George Floyd trial had fewer white people than Hennepin County, but I did not hear any liberals complain about that.

The judge agreed with the prosecution that is appeared the defense was striking jurors based off of race.

Appearance and actuality are two different things. Should potential jurors who knew Arbury or who express strong preconceptions about the case be allowed to participate just to eliminate an appearance that jurors were struck because of race?

Interesting. Maybe they should keep potential jurors behind a screen and disguise their voices, like in a dating gameshow.

Or an orchestra audition. Good idea. But that would not be good enough for race warriors like Merrittless. They are not about eliminating race-based biases. They are all about introducing biases that favor their side. So a color-blind approach is something they are against.