Althouse: "At Timothy Foster's trial in Rome, Ga., the prosecutor used four of his nine peremptory strikes to knock out all the qualified black jurors in the jury pool."

२ नोव्हेंबर, २०१५

"At Timothy Foster's trial in Rome, Ga., the prosecutor used four of his nine peremptory strikes to knock out all the qualified black jurors in the jury pool."

"The defense cried foul, but the trial judge and every appellate court after that, including the Georgia Supreme Court, accepted the non-racial reasons. The prosecutors gave as many as a dozen reasons for striking each black prospective juror. These justifications included things like 'failure to make eye contact,' looking 'bored,' being 'divorced,' or 'a social worker,' and so on."

From Nina Totenberg's report on a case that's up for oral argument in the Supreme Court today.

६५ टिप्पण्या:

damikesc म्हणाले...: There should be a wide ground for allowing disqualifications. The limit is there to avoid systematic discrimination.; २/११/१५, ८:५३ AM
Laslo Spatula म्हणाले...: "At Timothy Foster's trial in Rome, Ga., the prosecutor used four of his nine peremptory strikes to knock out all the qualified black jurors in the jury pool.""

He only used four of the nine strikes for this?

It seems he was behaving niggardly.

I am Laslo.; २/११/१५, ९:०१ AM
Robert Cook म्हणाले...: It was obviously a ploy by the prosecutor to obtain a jury more likely to convict the defendant on the basis of his race.; २/११/१५, ९:०३ AM
Bob Ellison म्हणाले...: It is political. Let's stop pretending the courts, the judges, the prosecutors, and the rest are not politicians. They are.; २/११/१५, ९:०३ AM
damikesc म्हणाले...: I'll also take any thing Nina "I'd blow Bill Clinton for keeping abortion legal" Totenberg with massive amounts of salt.; २/११/१५, ९:०५ AM
Robert Cook म्हणाले...: So you think Totenberg is lying about the prosecutor using peremptory strikes to eliminate the only qualified potential black jurors?; २/११/१५, ९:०९ AM
damikesc म्हणाले...: So you think Totenberg is lying about the prosecutor using peremptory strikes to eliminate the only qualified potential black jurors?

I assume she's lying about the why.

What has she done in her life to give her benefit of the doubt on anything?; २/११/१५, ९:११ AM
Tank म्हणाले...: Robert Cook said...

It was obviously a ploy by the prosecutor to obtain a jury more likely to convict the defendant on the basis of his race.

Bob, sit down, I don't want to shock you but, prosecutors try to convict people. By the time they get to trial, any "doing justice" considerations are over, they are looking to win.

Note: they are not looking to convict him "based upon his race." They are trying to convict him period. This is what criminal trials are about (on the state side).; २/११/१५, ९:१४ AM
Bob Ellison म्हणाले...: In Pennsylvania these days, TV ads are all about supreme court justices.

I asked my teenaged son what he thought about elected judges. He said it seemed OK.

We are doomed.; २/११/१५, ९:२२ AM
Robert Cook म्हणाले...: Tank,

I understand prosecutors want to convict people...and this is part of the problem with our justice system. They see it as a contest they must win, rather than as an investigation into the available facts that will assist the jury to come to a finding of guilty or not guilty. It is not the prosecutor's place to convict anyone; it is the prosecutor's place to present the state's case, presenting available evidence to support that case. It is the place of the jury to convict or acquit.

This prosecutor purposely excluded local citizens without cause who might have looked at the defendant as a human being worthy of being considered "innocent until proven guilty," and who would have considered the evidence with perhaps a bit of learned skepticism, and seated a jury of whites, who were more likely to see the black defendant and a priori take as a given he was guilty.

It was a despicable act...and prosecutors are often guilty of such despicable acts. The point of our justice system is--or should be--to make it difficult for the state to wield its overwhelming power unfairly against any citizen. The power should reside with the jury, though the state has done its best to remove the jury from pretty much any function but rubberstamping conclusions all-but-dictated by the court.; २/११/१५, ९:२५ AM
Bob Ellison म्हणाले...: Robert Cook, what was the "despicable act"?

This is not a trick question.; २/११/१५, ९:२९ AM
tim maguire म्हणाले...: Voir Dire is a violation of the right to a jury of ones peers. It serves no legitimate purpose, but exists merely to stack the deck. They should be forced to randomly assign 12 people to the jury. No questions, no excuses.; २/११/१५, ९:३० AM
Dust Bunny Queen म्हणाले...: So you think Totenberg is lying about the prosecutor using peremptory strikes to eliminate the only qualified potential black jurors?

Define qualified. If the juror is obviously biased in some way, has an attitude, is lying and many other reasons....white, black, brown or plaid, the attorney for the prosecution or defense is doing the correct thing to remove them from the jury pool.; २/११/१५, ९:३४ AM
bgates म्हणाले...: a jury of whites, who were more likely to see the black defendant and a priori take as a given he was guilty

What is the basis for assuming white jurors would be more likely to see a black defendant as guilty than black jurors?; २/११/१५, ९:३५ AM
Left Bank of the Charles म्हणाले...: ही टिप्पणी लेखकाना हलविली आहे.; २/११/१५, ९:४५ AM
Bruce Hayden म्हणाले...: The first problem I see with Cook's position is that the prosecutor played by the rules here. I think even when I was in LS better than a quarter century ago, the rule was that if a prosecutor wanted to use his peremptory challenges in this way, they need to document plausible non-racist (sexist, etc) reasons for the challenges. That is precisely what was done here. Cook seems to want to eliminate the ability to remove jurors peremtarily if the result would be offensive to him on a racial basis. But what if the prosecutor really did remove these jurors for other reasons? And would have removed these jurors anyway, regardless of race? Cook would seem to want the prosecution be saddled with jurors that the prosecution would wish to remove regardless of race. Essentially, picking up the BLM narrative, which puts racial results above truth and reality. The documenting of plausible rationales was the mechanism for protecting against against racist peremtories. Cook seems to want to go further, towards BLM and comparative worth territory, where (often faulty) statistics are more important than reality.; २/११/१५, ९:५५ AM
Michael K म्हणाले...: "It was obviously a ploy by the prosecutor to avoid a jury more likely to acquit the defendant on the basis of his race."

FIFY; २/११/१५, १०:०१ AM
mikee म्हणाले...: From the report, whatever the prosecutor found out about #6 resulted in a very emphatic double "X" eliminating that juror, more bold than any other jurors' scribbles.

I wonder if Cecil, Juror #6, said something out loud about jury nullification to avoid serving on the jury of a long murder trial?; २/११/१५, १०:०४ AM
Fen म्हणाले...: Tomorrow, when a white conservative Christian is on trial for refusing to violate her faith, and the prosecutor strikes out 4 obviously qualified white jurors... people like Robert Cook will argue that is cool.; २/११/१५, १०:१२ AM
eric म्हणाले...: I'm suspicious of the wording "qualified" in reference to the jurors.

Does this mean there were others that the defense knocked out because they weren't, supposedly, qualified?; २/११/१५, १०:१५ AM
rcocean म्हणाले...: "asked my teenaged son what he thought about elected judges. He said it seemed OK."

Elected judges are Great. And giving them short terms instead of life appointments should be standard procedure. They act like politicians and should be treated as such.; २/११/१५, १०:१८ AM
The Godfather म्हणाले...: I'm suspicious about this story. The law has been settled for a long time that if the prosecution strikes a "minority", they may be required to justify that act on non-discriminatory grounds, and these grounds cannot be merely pretextual. Totenberg's story makes it appear that the prosecution's grounds were clearly pretextual. Yet the trial judge and "every" appellate court concluded that the strikes were legitimate. I don't think the Supreme Court is likely to have taken this case in order to second-guess the courts below on the application of the standards previously established by the Court. There's probably an argument in this case that the Court's established rules need to be modified in some respect. It would be nice to know about that.; २/११/१५, १०:२३ AM
rcocean म्हणाले...: The Totenberg report is just her usual nonsense. Pretending to be objective while pushing her left-wing viewpoint. talking some "training video" WTF?

Prosecutors don't like black juror because they favor the defense. OJ anyone? They don't like all kinds of people who favor the defense. With the Defense attorneys its the same - they don't like conservative white men.

As for the SCOTUS, the 4 liberals will vote as a bloc - as always and once again King Kennedy will decide.; २/११/१५, १०:२६ AM
Michael म्हणाले...: On three occasions I have been in a jury pool on cases where I would actually know something about the business issue at hand. That has disqualified me in every case.

The instant case is one that was decided over twenty years ago, I think, and involved a murder. The deceased has been "knocked out" of all jury activity for quite a while.

Is the defense arguing that black jurors would have found for the defense because the defendant was black? That seems fucked up and an insult to blacks.; २/११/१५, १०:३१ AM
buster म्हणाले...: Would Cook object to the defense using its peremptories to exclude white people who might be prejudiced?

Non-adversarial systems of criminal justice (which treat a trial as a dispassionate inquiry into truth instead as a clash between the prosecution and the defense) are characteristic of the civil law (as opposed to the Anglo-American common law) legal tradition. The institution of a lay jury doesn't work very well for them. (Why should twelve people pulled in off the street be better at finding the truth than expert civil servants?) The justification of a lay jury is that it prevents abuses of power by the government, not that it's a more reliable fact finder.

Lay juries only make sense in an adversarial system, which treats a trial as a clash between the prosecution and the defense. That means the prosecution and the defense play by the same rules. If the defense gets peremptory challenges, so does the prosecution, and both sides get to use them in the same way.

This problem was discussed at length in the Supreme Court decision that imposed limits on the use of peremptory challenges in criminal cases. I don't remember the name of the case.; २/११/१५, १०:३५ AM
Michael K म्हणाले...: "Is the defense arguing that black jurors would have found for the defense because the defendant was black? That seems fucked up and an insult to blacks."

Yes, but true in this era of "Black Lives Matter." Too bad but we will live with these consequences a long time. If we are lucky.; २/११/१५, १०:४७ AM
Robert Cook म्हणाले...: "Is the defense arguing that black jurors would have found for the defense because the defendant was black? That seems fucked up and an insult to blacks."

The argument is not that the black jurors would have found for the defense simply because they were of the same race as the defendant; the argument is that the prosecutor didn't want any jurors who were of the same race as the defendant and who might therefore see him as a human being, due the "presumption of innocence," rather than as just another "black perp." The prosecutor was playing on the potential racism of an all-white jury, assuming they would give more credence to the prosecution's arguments and less credence to the defense.

The prosecutor should have been able to find specific reasons to reject the black jurors if there was a basis to think they would have been biased for the defendant. His use of the peremptory exclusion to remove all potential black jurors gives the game away.; २/११/१५, १०:५९ AM
Robert Cook म्हणाले...: "Robert Cook, what was the 'despicable act'?"

The exclusion of all potential black jurors without cause, hoping thereby to have a jury more prejudiced against the defendant.; २/११/१५, ११:०१ AM
Robert Cook म्हणाले...: "What is the basis for assuming white jurors would be more likely to see a black defendant as guilty than black jurors?"

Several hundred years of American history.; २/११/१५, ११:०२ AM
Robert Cook म्हणाले...: "The first problem I see with Cook's position is that the prosecutor played by the rules here."

And the rules in our justice system are stacked against defendants.; २/११/१५, ११:०५ AM
Robert Cook म्हणाले...: "Tomorrow, when a white conservative Christian is on trial for refusing to violate her faith, and the prosecutor strikes out 4 obviously qualified white jurors... people like Robert Cook will argue that is cool."

Not in the least. But then, such a thing will never happen, so I won't have the opportunity to demonstrate my consistency. (And, why white jurors? I would assume the analogous situation would be jurors of the same faith as the defendant.); २/११/१५, ११:०७ AM
SGT Ted म्हणाले...: The more apt question is:

What is the basis for assuming that THESE particular white jurors will be more likely to see a black defendant as guilty than black jurors?

What other white people have done in the past isn't much of an answer.; २/११/१५, ११:३३ AM
Michael K म्हणाले...: "And the rules in our justice system are stacked against defendants."

I agree to some extent. The bias to plead out is intense and we are seeing people who go to trial getting very heavy sentences. That should not be allowed.

I am not at all sympathetic to the myth that the prisons are full of non-violent offenders but there is a problem with prosecutor discretion.; २/११/१५, ११:४१ AM
Michael म्हणाले...: http://murderpedia.org/male.F/f/foster-timothy-tyrone.htm; २/११/१५, ११:४६ AM
Michael म्हणाले...: Federal prosecutors have something like a 95% conviction rate which raises a question that answers itself. Most succumb to a plea in lieu of going broke.

Timothy Foster, by the way, confessed to the crime.; २/११/१५, ११:४९ AM
Matt Sablan म्हणाले...: "What is the basis for assuming white jurors would be more likely to see a black defendant as guilty than black jurors?"

-- Racism, primarily.; २/११/१५, ११:५४ AM
Matt Sablan म्हणाले...: So, why were there only 4 qualified jurors? How big was the jury pool? What's the racial breakdown of the area the trial was happening?; २/११/१५, ११:५५ AM
Michael म्हणाले...: Matthew Sablan

Rome is a small town of about 30,000. 10,000 black.

The defendant, by the way, confessed to the crime. I think the issue is with the death sentence.; २/११/१५, १२:०२ PM
Matt Sablan म्हणाले...: Seems like they didn't draft enough blacks into the juror pool then if there were only four that needed to be struck.; २/११/१५, १२:०४ PM
Thorley Winston म्हणाले...: My understanding is that Foster confessed to the burglary and the killing but not to the rape in the hopes of getting leniency and tried to claim that his drug use meant he didn’t have the requisite intent commit murder. Apparently the jury didn’t find his defense of “yes I broke into the home of a 79-year old retired school teacher and beat her to death but I didn’t rape her because I was on drugs” to very compelling during the sentencing phase.; २/११/१५, १२:०७ PM
Matt Sablan म्हणाले...: But, if every court so far has stood by the strikes, I think that maybe an editorial isn't the best source to go to.; २/११/१५, १२:०७ PM
damikesc म्हणाले...: the argument is that the prosecutor didn't want any jurors who were of the same race as the defendant and who might therefore see him as a human being, due the "presumption of innocence," rather than as just another "black perp."

...so whites don't view blacks as humans? THAT is your argument?

The exclusion of all potential black jurors without cause, hoping thereby to have a jury more prejudiced against the defendant.

Cause was given. You may not like the why, but the why was provided.

Several hundred years of American history.

Yet you're a Communist in spite of the massive record of brutal human rights violations and being really bad at doing anything...; २/११/१५, १२:१९ PM
Gusty Winds म्हणाले...: Robert Cook said... the argument is that the prosecutor didn't want any jurors who were of the same race as the defendant and who might therefore see him as a human being

Sadly, Mr. Cook may have point. I'd imagine an all Muslim jury would hand down a death penalty recommendation if a Jewish person were on trial for jaywalking.

Shit. Look at what Chisholm and the libs were willing to do to Walker supporters; and half the good Packer loving citizens of Wisconsin applauded.

And in the OJ trial, it was that the predominately female black jury didn't see Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman as human beings worthy of justice. That's where Clark and Darden went wrong.

I don't think the bar is very high in assuming one human being will send another human being up the river simply because they are outside the assigned group, or deny justice to the victim if the accused holds their sympathy.

But more than anything it just illustrates that justice is not blind.; २/११/१५, १:४० PM
hombre म्हणाले...: Cook: "It was obviously a ploy by the prosecutor to obtain a jury more likely to convict the defendant on the basis of his race."

Maybe it was an attempt to keep the defendant from being unfairly acquitted because of his race. You know, like OJ Simpson. The unfortunate aspect is that it would be politically incorrect to argue that before the SCOTUS even though the risk is evident to nearly all.

Orwellian caricatures like Cook and a couple of the justices will no doubt argue that the appearance of discrimination is more detrimental to society than the likelihood that African-Americans might vote to acquit members of their race against compelling evidence of guilt. Of course these same caricatures readily assume a danger of whites voting to convict blacks against the weight of the evidence despite the necessity of a unanimous jury to convict.

There will be moral equivocation.; २/११/१५, २:०३ PM
hombre म्हणाले...: "I don't think the bar is very high in assuming one human being will send another up the river simply because they are outside the assigned group, or deny justice to the victim if the accused holds their sympathy."

Perhaps not, but it takes unanimity of twelve to convict and only one to block conviction.; २/११/१५, २:२२ PM
Bobby म्हणाले...: SGT Ted,

"What is the basis for assuming that THESE particular white jurors will be more likely to see a black defendant as guilty than black jurors? "

You'd have to ask that question of the prosecutor- if Totenberg's account is to be believed, it was the prosecutor who deliberately removed African-Americans from the jury pool so that the trial would be left with an all-white jury. Why this prosecutor believed that those particular white jurors would be more likely to see a black defendant as guilty than would black jurors is something that only he can answer.; २/११/१५, २:३० PM
Ambrose म्हणाले...: From my perspective, the ability of African Americans to get out of jury duty is a huge advantage.; २/११/१५, ४:४६ PM
The Godfather म्हणाले...: There's an old lawyer's story about Myron Goldberg, who was arrested in rural Wyoming for disorderly conduct. When the case came to trial, Mr. Goldberg's lawyer asked every prospective juror the same question: Would you be able to render a fair verdict in this case against a defendant, knowing he was an American Indian? Juror 1, John Running Deer, somewhat puzzled by the question, said yes. Juror 2, Lonely Buffalo, was also puzzled, but answered yes, too. As did Susan Little Prairie Flower, Frank Eagle Eye, and the rest of the venire.

Mr. Goldberg did not testify in his defense, and was acquitted.; २/११/१५, ५:३३ PM
JCC म्हणाले...: From Totenberg "...failure to make eye contact..." as if that were the reason cited for the challenge.
From the government's brief; "Ms Garrett showed a complete disrespect for the trial court (during voir dire)". ...the trial court agreed that the body language of a prospective juror is important...the State also noted its concern for Ms Garrett's connection to her first cousin who had just been arrested for Cocaine...and subsequently lost her job coaching and teaching at a local school." Another potential juror was openly hostile to the prosecutor during voir dire and became defensive during questioning.
From Totenberg; for being "a social worker"
From the government's brief: One of the two above worked at the local Head Start with disadvantaged youths. During a pre-trial conference, the defense attorney told the trial judge and the prosecutor he would be seeking jurors with a background working with disadvantaged young people, because he felt they would be sympathetic to his client. The government challenged several potential jurors, both white and black, based on this representation.
Finally, the last juror's wife worked at the local mental hospital as a nurse. He was challenged because defense counsel suggested it was going to offer an insanity defense.

One of the four lied on her jury form and failed to note that her brother had been arrested between 5 and 7 times for felonies. Another of the four had spoken to the defendant's mother outside of court, and asked to be excused herself. the government's brief describes her as elderly and confused. I guess Nina forgot to mention these 2, who were not contested by the defense.

From Totenberg: "The name of each black prospective juror was highlighted in green, circled and labeled with a "B."
From the government's brief: The ethnicity of every juror was clearly noted, because the prosecutor knew they would have to defend every challenge, said defense based on being race neutral, due to the Batson decison which had just been decided.

In other words, a typical NPR bunch of cr*p. No court which has considered the record has yet to disagree with the trial court or the prosecutors' conduct.; २/११/१५, ५:४० PM
JCC म्हणाले...: By the way, what happened:

In 1986, Queen Madge White, a 79-year-old widow and retired elementary school teacher, lived alone in her long-time residence. The neighborhood in which White lived had, through the years, declined and seen an influx of crime. During the night, in August of 1986, Petitioner Timothy Foster broke into White’s home. He broke her jaw, coated her face with talcum powder, sexually molested her with a salad- dressing bottle, and strangled her to death, all before taking items from her home. A month later, Foster threatened his live-in companion, Lisa Stubbs, who was aware of the crimes against White. She, in turn, reported the crimes to police. Once arrested, Foster confessed and Stubbs, who was also black, became the State’s main witness against Foster.

Let's talk about Queen Madge White's rights for a moment. She didn't get to choose the ethnic make-up of her jury.; २/११/१५, ५:४३ PM
JCC म्हणाले...: @ Robert Cook -

You make the most banal and predictable of comments here, but do so clearly without the least bit of actual knowledge of the facts of the specific case. Especially these days, there really is no excuse for this.

You should at least read the various government briefs before making such silly statements. Nina Totenberg at least has the excuse of writing at NPR, where such vacuity is the norm, and her audience would expect no less.

Try this: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FOSTER.pdf

See if a reasonable person would not, after reading the brief, think that perhaps the argument over the jurors isn't really about, say, the death penalty, or capital punishment...you know, something like that. Certainly there's room for a difference of opinion on CP, but this particular case issue is a sham. The man killed an elderly woman in a particularly heinous fashion, and is now using a (creative, I'll grant) legal argument on a completely ancillary issue to evade responsibility for what he did.; २/११/१५, ५:५३ PM
hombre म्हणाले...: Bobby: "Why this prosecutor believed that those particular white jurors would be more likely to see a black defendant as guilty than would black jurors is something that only he can answer."

Not so. As we've seen, Robert Cook is more than happy to speculate about such things assuming the worst about the prosecutor and the jurors - they are white southerners, after all.

Of course the whole point of peremptory challenges is to pick jurors most likely to decide for your side. It is by nature a discriminatory process, but justice may demand that black defendants be given an edge. Otherwise, what will people think?; २/११/१५, ५:५९ PM
hombre म्हणाले...: Oh yes, there is also no dearth of justices on SCOTUS who past performance suggests will also be willing to speculate along with the likes of Robert Cook.; २/११/१५, ६:०४ PM
jimbino म्हणाले...: Here's comes the Supreme Court, exclusively made up of Roman Catholics and Jews, with nary a Protestant, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, Scientologist Adventist, Agnostic or Atheist, all humanities majors (no STEM), and all but two united in their circumcisions, ready to pass judgment on exclusion of Blacks from a jury panel.

At least they don't have to believe in God, as the Texas Constitution requires of lawyers, judges and jurors.; २/११/१५, ६:२८ PM
Douglas B. Levene म्हणाले...: Isn't the best possible solution (not perfect, merely the best possible) to limit peremptory challenges (for both sides) to one or two per trial, forgo any inquiry into the lawyer's motivations for using them, and tell them to make challenges for cause for anyone else?; २/११/१५, ७:०१ PM
Michael K म्हणाले...: "There's an old lawyer's story about Myron Goldberg, who was arrested in rural Wyoming "

This reminds me of a joke that has the punchline, "Tonto Liebowitz !"; २/११/१५, ७:१३ PM
Michael K म्हणाले...: The discussion of the motive for the prosecutor's challenges. I have done quite a bit of testifying in court. In one case, a attempted murder case, the defense layer who described himself as a "Bleeding heart liberal" kept continuing the case until he got the affirmative action assistant DA, He told me, this against all my principles but it is also business. His client was acquitted.; २/११/१५, ७:१९ PM
JCC म्हणाले...: Any criminal defense lawyer worth his salt will tell you, if he/she is being honest, that they will exclude with any means possible anyone from a jury who has managerial or executive experience, because such people are used to making rational decisions which can affect other persons, and so might be inclined to decide a case based on fact rather than emotion, and further, would not shy away from the consequences of a guilty decision. On the other hand, that same defense attorney will try to include any mother, grandmother, social worker and the like, or those who are used to excusing bad conduct and equating a person's lack of responsibility with someone else's failure, because - among other things - this second type of individual will be more likely to equate the consequences of a guilty verdict with the verdict itself, which a judge will instruct jurors not to do.

So apparently this is all OK, but if a prosecutor thinks that a black juror will be more sympathetic to a black defendant, this is somehow a racist thing.

See also O J Simpson verdict, reaction to Michael Brown shooting, etc.; २/११/१५, ८:११ PM
jimbino म्हणाले...: Attorneys for both sides seek to exclude anyone well-versed in the law, since they will know about jury nullification.; २/११/१५, ८:५५ PM
Bruce Hayden म्हणाले...: Funny story about attorneys being excused from jury duty When I was newly annonted as such, my mentor/boss was called for jury duty. "Knowing" that attorneys would be excused for cause, he didn't make plans for what to do if he wasn't excused, which is what happened, since this was a civil, not criminal, trial. We spent the next two weeks doing fire drills as a result.

And, yes, I know all about jury nullification. And probably more that the prosecution would want about reasonable doubt. So, while I have been involved in a couple jury trials, none were as a juror. Mostly as an attorney, but almost recently as a witness.; ३/११/१५, १०:१० AM
Rick म्हणाले...: damikesc said...
I'll also take any thing Nina "I'd blow Bill Clinton for keeping abortion legal" Totenberg

That was Nina Burleigh, not Totenberg.; ३/११/१५, १:३९ PM
Beldar म्हणाले...: And thus does the SCOTUS set off on yet another wild goose chase in five-times-removed mind-reading. Nobody -- including the lawyer casting the preemptory strikes -- knows whether a given jury is or is not being chosen in violation of Batson. Even Justice Breyer has recognized that "Batson asks judges to engage in the awkward, sometime[s] hopeless, task of second-guessing a prosecutor's instinctive judgment — the underlying basis for which may be invisible even to the prosecutor exercising the challenge." The only part he got wrong was the word "sometimes" -- it should have read "always."; ३/११/१५, ७:४५ PM
Beldar म्हणाले...: @ Bruce Hayden: I have one hard & fast rule about jury selection, one rule I will never, ever, deviate from under any circumstances:

I will strike any lawyer from the venire whom I can't get excused for cause (which will depend entirely on whether they want to be excused for cause or not). If I've got even one strike left, I will not permit another lawyer to argue the case in the jury room outside my hearing and after the judge and all the other lawyers have lost a chance to argue back.; ३/११/१५, ७:५५ PM
Beldar म्हणाले...: ^^ This rule is based on my own experience as a juror, in which I came to the firm conclusion that a lawyer cannot serve on a jury without committing jury misconduct, despite the lawyer's very best good-faith efforts to restrict himself to the same role as a lay juror would occupy.

That can't be done. Law school warps the mind too profoundly.; ३/११/१५, ७:५७ PM
Nichevo म्हणाले...: Beldar, LOL. If victims of law school are unfit, how much more so (a fortiori?) lawprofs like our hostess?; ४/११/१५, ९:४७ AM