Racism in Jury Selection - Supreme Court Case

Let's see how the posters explain this one. A case has been taken by SCOTUS.

Cases showing that prosecutors intentionally strike potential black jurors, because they are black. So you end up with Black defendants in majority black cities with juries that are either all white or nearly so.
The particular example case was in Georgia in 1986.

The U.S. Supreme Court wrestles Monday with a problem that has long plagued the criminal justice system: race discrimination in the selection of jurors. "Numerous studies demonstrate that prosecutors use peremptory strikes to remove black jurors at significantly higher rates than white jurors." Those are not the words of the defense in the case. They come from a group of highly regarded prosecutors, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, who have filed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with Timothy Foster, who was convicted and sentenced to death in the killing of an elderly white woman in Georgia.

At Timothy Foster's 1987 trial, the names of prospective black jurors were highlighted in green, circled, and labelled with a "b." The defense will argue that it reeks of racial discrimination. The state of Georgia's brief contents the jurors were labelled in order to be able to rebut potential allegations of racial discrimination. Eds note: Street addresses have been redacted by NPR.

Story Source

Studies show that All white juries also convict black defendants at a much higher rate than mixed juries.



I had thought such obvious explicit bias was a thing of the past, but apparently not.

Jury Selection Video

Alate_One said:

Cases showing that prosecutors intentionally strike potential black jurors, because they are black.

Click to expand...

i suspect there's more to it than that


after all, prosecutors would, i would think, rather have a conviction than exercise their power to keep the black man down by excluding him from a jury


iow, i suspect that prosecutors exclude blacks because they think they can make their case more successfully to a white jury, for whatever reason

maybe certain groups of whites are more predictable

it would be interesting to see how well respresented on juries certain white demographics are

are young white males excluded?

are white trash excluded?

Alate_One said:

Let's see how the posters explain this one. A case has been taken by SCOTUS.

Cases showing that prosecutors intentionally strike potential black jurors, because they are black. So you end up with Black defendants in majority black cities with juries that are either all white or nearly so.
The particular example case was in Georgia in 1986.

Click to expand...

I would tend to be more outraged had it not been for the example set by the OJ Simpson trial.

Rusha said:

I would tend to be more outraged had it not been for the example set by the OJ Simpson trial.

Click to expand...

I remember it well: I was in the employee cafeteria when the verdict came back and the 6 or more Black employees literally cheered when the double murderer, who nearly decapitated his wife, was found not guilty.

This scene was common across America and still is.



Juries are supposed to be color blind. Unfortunately many Black Americans don't see it that way.

Black juror refuses to convict Black
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AAIBAJ&sjid=YscEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4272,735345&hl=en

There is a 'book' out there that pretty much every trial lawyer knows about that is a statistical analysis of what the best jury composition is to get a favorable verdict.

Sometimes they exclude young people, sometimes old, sometimes black, sometimes white... its all about statistics and not race, gender or affluence.

aCultureWarrior said:

I remember it well: I was in the employee cafeteria when the verdict came back and the 6 or more Black employees literally cheered when the double murderer, who nearly decapitated his wife, was found not guilty.

This scene was common across America and still is.

Juries are supposed to be color blind. Unfortunately many Black Americans don't see it that way.

Black juror refuses to convict Black
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AAIBAJ&sjid=YscEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4272,735345&hl=en

Click to expand...

The jury in question determined he was not guilty PRIOR to any evidence being presented.

ok doser said:

i suspect there's more to it than that


after all, prosecutors would, i would think, rather have a conviction than exercise their power to keep the black man down by excluding him from a jury


iow, i suspect that prosecutors exclude blacks because they think they can make their case more successfully to a white jury, for whatever reason

Click to expand...

Yep.

Rusha said:

The jury in question determined he was not guilty PRIOR to any evidence being presented.

Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder why.

The Jurors Who Voted:
• Armanda Cooley - #230 (seat 1) - Forewoman and Original Juror, Black female, 51, divorced, two years of college, employed as a vendor, lives in South Central L.A. Co-author of 'Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?' with jurors Bess and Rubin-Jackson.
•Yolanda Crawford - #1492 - (seat 2) - Placed on jury June 6 (replacing Farron Chavarria), Black female, 25, single, one year of college, hospital employee, lives in Gardena. Informed Ito about a note written by Chavarria on a newspaper and allegedly read by Florio-Bunten, causing their dismissal.
•Anise Aschenbach - #1290 (seat 3) - Placed on jury March 17 (replacing Tracy Kennedy), White female, 61, divorced, one year of college, retired gasoline company clerk, lives in Norwalk. One of two jurors who voted guilty in first vote.
•David Aldana - #19 (seat 4) - Original Juror, Hispanic male, 33, single, high school graduate, drives a Pepsi delivery truck, lives in East L.A.
•Marsha Rubin-Jackson - #984 (seat 5) - Original Juror, Black female, 38, married, high school graduate, mail carrier for USPS, lives in Bellflower. Co-author of 'Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?'.
•Lionel Cryer - #247 (seat 6) - Placed on jury Jan. 18, Black male, 44, high school graduate, works as a phone company marketing representative. Florio-Bunten told Ito she thought that he may be writing a book. Gave Simpson "power salute" after the verdict.
•Brenda Moran - #795 (seat 7) - Placed on jury April 5 (replacing Jeanette Harris), Black female, 45, single, high school graduate, computer technician. Reported to be working on a book with Gina Rosborough, titled 'Inside the Simpson Jury: The Parallel Universe'.
•Sheila Woods - #1233 (seat 8) - Original Juror, Black female, 39, single, college graduate, employed as an environmental health specialist, lives in Inglewood. Told Ito she thought that Aschenbach, Florio-Bunten and Chavarria disliked her, because they suspected her of being behind the dismissal of Kathryn Murdoch.
•Carrie Bess - #98 (seat 9) - Black female, 53, divorced, high school graduate, postal clerk, lives in South Central. Co-author of 'Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?'.
•Gina Rosborough - #2179 (seat 10) - Placed on jury June 6 (replacing Willie Craven), Black female, 29, married, high school graduate, postal employee. Reported to be working on a book with Brenda Moran, titled 'Inside the Simpson Jury: The Parallel Universe'.
•Annie Backman - #63 (seat 11) - Original Juror, White female, 23, single, college graduate, insurance claims adjuster, lives in Burbank. Believed to be the other juror who initially voted 'guilty' (source: Aschenbach's interview on 'Larry King Live').
•Beatrice Wilson - #2457 (seat 12) - Placed on jury May 26 (replacing Francine Florio-Bunten, who replaced Michael Knox), Black female, 72, married, completed 10th grade, retired cleaner, lives in L.A.'s West Adams.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/finaljury.html

aCultureWarrior said:

Gee, I wonder why.

Click to expand...

I don't ... nor do I think anyone who is honest would deny it was a verdict based solely on the defendant's skin color and celebrity status.

I'm gonna quit my day job over retarded nonsense like OP's racist bile:

This is a death-penalty case. Queen Madge White, a 79-year-old widow, lived by herself in Rome, Georgia. Early in the evening of August 27, 1986, a friend took White to choir practice, and brought her home at 8:30 p.m. White talked to her sister by telephone at 9:00 p.m. and everything was normal. However, when the sister stopped by early the next morning, she discovered that White's house had been broken into and ransacked. The sister called the police, who found White's body lying on the floor in her bedroom covered to her chin by a blanket. Her face was coated with talcum powder. Her jaw was broken. She had a severe gash on the top of her head. She had been sexually molested with a salad-dressing bottle, and strangled to death. A number of her possessions were missing from her home.

http://murderpedia.org/male.F/f/foster-timothy-tyrone.htm

The guy should have had his insides shown to him decades ago, but liberals think his color justifies injustice.

Stripe said:

I'm gonna quit my day job over retarded nonsense like OP's racist bile:

This is a death-penalty case. Queen Madge White, a 79-year-old widow, lived by herself in Rome, Georgia. Early in the evening of August 27, 1986, a friend took White to choir practice, and brought her home at 8:30 p.m. White talked to her sister by telephone at 9:00 p.m. and everything was normal. However, when the sister stopped by early the next morning, she discovered that White's house had been broken into and ransacked. The sister called the police, who found White's body lying on the floor in her bedroom covered to her chin by a blanket. Her face was coated with talcum powder. Her jaw was broken. She had a severe gash on the top of her head. She had been sexually molested with a salad-dressing bottle, and strangled to death. A number of her possessions were missing from her home.

http://murderpedia.org/male.F/f/foster-timothy-tyrone.htm

The guy should have had his insides shown to him decades ago, but liberals think his color justifies injustice.

Click to expand...

Status: Sentenced to death on May 6, 1987

Click to expand...

so he was executed, right?

Alate_One said:

Let's see how the posters explain this one. A case has been taken by SCOTUS.

Cases showing that prosecutors intentionally strike potential black jurors, because they are black.

Click to expand...

This all seems so boring. Sometimes I wonder if we are not infected by radical liberals who are not smart enough to gain any recognition in their own forums?

Alate_One said:

Studies show that All white juries also convict black defendants at a much higher rate than mixed juries.

I had thought such obvious explicit bias was a thing of the past, but apparently not.

Click to expand...

So what you think would be better is to have a quota system on juries now? Over a 1986 case that was seemingly handled fine except blacks were possibly excluded, which is not that surprising since a great many blacks have contempt and hatred toward the police and "the man"? And do not seem able to convict someone of their own race?
You do realize that prospective jurors are eliminated for all kinds of reasons, all of them subjective?
Politically correct interference from the government just gets worse and worse.

ok doser said:

i suspect there's more to it than that


after all, prosecutors would, i would think, rather have a conviction than exercise their power to keep the black man down by excluding him from a jury


iow, i suspect that prosecutors exclude blacks because they think they can make their case more successfully to a white jury, for whatever reason

Click to expand...

Yeah it's easier to convict a black guy with a white jury. But is that the point? Getting the most convictions? How about fairness? Or do we not believe in that?

If you noticed in my graphic and link, more diverse juries convict fewer black people, but more white people, resulting in relatively equal conviction rates. I can make a pretty good guess as to why that is.

Rusha said:

I would tend to be more outraged had it not been for the example set by the OJ Simpson trial.

Click to expand...

Do you really think a single high profile case from twenty years ago is what we should use as an "example" of how juries with black people in them 'typically' work?

Don't you see a problem with that idea?

Alate_One said:

Yeah it's easier to convict a black guy with a white jury. But is that the point? Getting the most convictions? How about fairness? Or do we not believe in that?

If you noticed in my graphic and link, more diverse juries convict fewer black people, but more white people, resulting in relatively equal conviction rates. I can make a pretty good guess as to why that is.

Click to expand...

But you don't know, and you can't prove that it is not "fair". White juries do convict white defendants. Do you honestly think all black juries would convict black defendants?

aCultureWarrior said:

Juries are supposed to be color blind. Unfortunately many Black Americans don't see it that way.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those all white juries are really color blind.

Alate_One said:

Do you really think a single high profile case from twenty years ago is what we should use as an "example" of how juries with black people in them 'typically' work?

Don't you see a problem with that idea?

Click to expand...

Isn't that how you started this?