• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Racial Bias Found in US Court System Jury Selection

Status
Not open for further replies.
In 1987, as the legal teams were preparing to pick a jury, they were granted "peremptory challenges" that allowed them to dismiss potential jurors without explanation. But Supreme Court precedent -- reaffirmed in 1986 -- says, however, that jurors cannot be struck because of their race.

In the Foster case, the state and the defense used their peremptory strikes to reduce the pool to 12 jurors and four alternates. The state struck the four black potential jurors.

One set of documents from the prosecution files shows that potential jurors who were black had a "B" written by their name and their names highlighted with a green pen. On some juror questionnaire sheets, the juror's race "black," "color" or "negro" was circled. One juror, Eddie Hood, was labeled "B#1. Others were labeled B#2, and B#3.

Another set of the prosecution notes contains a coded key to identify race. There is a list of six "definite no's" --the top five are black.

In Court the "definite no" list troubled Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "Who was responsible for the definite no list?" she asked.

In 2013, a lower trial court conducted an examination of Foster's claims and ruled against him.

In 2010, the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit organization that provides legal representation to prisoners, reviewed jury selection procedures of eight southern states and uncovered what it called "shocking evidence" of racial discrimination in jury selection in every state.

"In many cases, people of color not only have been illegally excluded but also denigrated and insulted with pretextual reasons intended to conceal racial bias," the report concluded. The authors found that African-Americans had been excluded because they "appeared to have 'low intelligence'; wore eyeglasses; were single, married, or separated; or were too old for jury service at age 43 or too young at 28."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/death-penalty-race-trial-evidence/index.html
 

Slayven

Member
What is the opposite of shocked?

This will go on top of a huge pile of studies that shows racism is not only real but profitable and be ignored.
 
I never understood jury. You're giving people who are biased the chance to vote on a crime. We need super computers to weigh our sins, humans are too corrupt.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
No way! That would never happen!

How could anyway insinuate systemic racism in this great country of ours!
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
A good ATL Redline article on this too.

http://www.atlredline.com/how-much-evidence-do-you-need-to-call-a-racist-a-racist-1740105883

Batson challenges are dumb and they really need to change the system.
I haven't read ATL in probably 6 years, but it's good to see the commentators still hate Elie.

I think the onus has to be put on the judiciary to ensure that a race-neutral jury is struck and that Batson is followed. I can't speak for criminal law, but I know on the civil side of things here in Alabama, it's very much a concern and in the back of your mind when you're striking a jury.
 

samn

Member
Huh, didn't realise this was illegal. I was reading A Time to Kill and they were openly striking people because of their race. Maybe I shouldn't pay so much attention to legal thrillers.
 
You shouldn't be.

I think he's being sarcastic and making a point that the south is the Acceptable Target for whitewashing a larger, nationwide problem with race and the justice system.

It's also fun to imagine what % of the OP's title is redundant.

Racial Bias Found in US Court System Jury Selection
Racial Bias Found in US Court System Jury
Racial Bias Found in US Court System
Racial Bias Found in US Court
Racial Bias Found in US
 
Do lawyers and prosecutors not pick the jurors? If one defends a racist, you bet your ass he/she will be selecting Republican Whites to be on the jury.
 

gcubed

Member
This case is old but finally made it to the SC so it's being talked about again. I'm not holding hope that the SC will do anything
 

The Llama

Member
I haven't read ATL in probably 6 years, but it's good to see the commentators still hate Elie.

I think the onus has to be put on the judiciary to ensure that a race-neutral jury is struck and that Batson is followed. I can't speak for criminal law, but I know on the civil side of things here in Alabama, it's very much a concern and in the back of your mind when you're striking a jury.

The ATL comment section is always great.
 

Crud

Banned
What is the opposite of shocked?

This will go on top of a huge pile of studies that shows racism is not only real but profitable and be ignored.

Yep. They don't care. They think they rule the world this way. Shit is sad.
 

Guevara

Member
Having recently been called for jury duty: there weren't that many black prospective jurors selected to appear (randomly) to begin with, and furthermore 'somehow' during the selection process the jury wound up 100% middle-aged or older white and Asian jurors.

Every black- and Hispanic person, and everyone younger than about 40 were removed. This was in San Francisco, pretty eye-opening really.
 
Having recently been called for jury duty: there weren't that many black prospective jurors selected to appear (randomly) to begin with, and furthermore 'somehow' during the selection process the jury wound up 100% middle-aged or older white and Asian jurors.

Every black- and Hispanic person, and everyone younger than about 40 were removed. This was in San Francisco, pretty eye-opening really.

Curious was the defendant a person of color?
 

Apt101

Member
According to John Grisham, in at least two novels I've read, defense attorneys always want to keep blacks on a jury because they perceive that demographic as being less trusting of the courts and law enforcement - and that's the reason prosecutors always try to get them excused. I just figured it was him placing that bias upon his characters for story telling purposes, though I shouldn't be surprised if this is the case.
 
I made a thread once asking if jury selection should be truly random because of alarming statistics like this, and the vast majority of the posters disagreed with the concept.

Is this another case where people recognize that there is a problem but aren't willing to do the one thing necessary to fix it?

According to John Grisham, in at least two novels I've read, defense attorneys always want to keep blacks on a jury because they perceive that demographic as being less trusting of the courts and law enforcement - and that's the reason prosecutors always try to get them excused. I just figured it was him placing that bias upon his characters for story telling purposes, though I shouldn't be surprised if this is the case.

People who work in law know there is a science to jury selection. They will try to exploit it whenever possible, and the net result is almost complete disenfranchisement of minority groups from the legal process, especially when the death penalty is on the line.
 

ISOM

Member
I made a thread once asking if jury selection should be truly random because of alarming statistics like this, and the vast majority of the posters disagreed with the concept.

Is this another case where people recognize that there is a problem but aren't willing to do the one thing necessary to fix it?

I don't think faces should be factored into any decision for jury selections. Lawyers should only be allowed to make up a questionnaire and have prospective jurors fill it out and they select based on that. No face to face interviews should be involved.
 

Apt101

Member
People who work in law know there is a science to jury selection. They will try to exploit it whenever possible, and the net result is almost complete disenfranchisement of minority groups from the legal process, especially when the death penalty is on the line.

There must be something about me that turns off prosecutors as well, because all three times I've been called in for jury duty (twice in consecutive years once after moving to a different city) they were quick to excuse me. I'm half white, half asian, I wore smart business casual attire each time, and answered honestly. They always asked me pretty much the same thing: what do I do for a living, who is my employer, and I have I ever been in a similar situation as the plaintiff. I always answered network engineer, healthcare IT and <employer>, and no. I was always the first to go. I must have like the perfect storm of bad jury characteristics.

Edit: bad is probably the wrong word. Unfavorable.
 
I don't think faces should be factored into any decision for jury selections. Lawyers should only be allowed to make up a questionnaire and have prospective jurors fill it out and they select based on that. No face to face interviews should be involved.

It's pretty easy to design a questionnaire to discern social status, gender, age, and political leanings. For a desired outcome, you want a relatively homogenous jury, so it'd have pretty much the same effect.
 
I could've sworn that everyone stopped seeing color, especially in the judicial system, after Clarence Thomas was put on the supreme Court. I was clearly wrong
 
You got got. Dude enjoys pointing out things when it isn't the south..lol. Florida is clearly the most fair and open minded state in the union..

On topic:

.

Well the confederacy lost, so this is still part of the US south! Anything I can do to remind people that racism is alive and well in all 50 states, though. Everyone's shit stinks here and I'm just here to waft those fumes over as a gentle reminder.
 
There must be something about me that turns off prosecutors as well, because all three times I've been called in for jury duty (twice in consecutive years once after moving to a different city) they were quick to excuse me. I'm half white, half asian, I wore smart business casual attire each time, and answered honestly. They always asked me pretty much the same thing: what do I do for a living, who is my employer, and I have I ever been in a similar situation as the plaintiff. I always answered network engineer, healthcare IT and <employer>, and no. I was always the first to go. I must have like the perfect storm of bad jury characteristics.

Edit: bad is probably the wrong word. Unfavorable.

It's probably the engineering career in your case. Typically one side or the other wants to stay away from too well educated jurors, they are less likely to fall in line with the narrative and more likely to read into evidence and testimony things that aren't there. I've been in both positions, wanting an educated panel and wanting a more swayable through emotions panel.


I've never tried a case in a court where the struck juror would know which side struck him unless it was an obvious for cause strike made at the time of questioning, a know the defendant/attorney, can't uphold the law can't be impartial, etc. strike.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom