[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Justices asked to rule that racial bias trumps jury secrecy
Source: Las Vegas Sun
URL Source: http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/ap ... e-that-racial-bias-trumps-jur/
Published: Apr 2, 2016
Author: Mark Sherman, Associated Press
Post Date: 2016-04-02 11:12:26 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 1219
Comments: 5

The American jury room is a bit like Las Vegas: What happens there is supposed to stay there.

But a Supreme Court appeal from a Hispanic defendant in Colorado raises the prospect that a juror's comments during deliberations can be so offensive that they deprive a defendant of a fair trial.

The justices could say as early as Monday whether they will take up a case in the fall involving competing tenets of the legal system: a defendant's constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury, and the need for secrecy in jury deliberations.

After a jury convicted Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez of attempted sexual assault involving teenage sisters at a Denver-area horse race track, two jurors provided his lawyer with sworn statements claiming that a third juror made derogatory remarks about Mexican men before voting guilty.

"I think he did it because he's Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want," is one of several racially tinged statements attributed to the juror identified in court records by the initials H.C. In another comment, the juror is said to have cast doubt on an alibi provided by a Hispanic witness for Pena Rodriguez because the witness was "an illegal." The witness testified that he was in the country legally.

But three separate courts in Colorado said those statements could not be used to upend Pena Rodriguez's conviction because of a long-standing rule that prohibits jurors from testifying about what happens during deliberations. The rule, found in both federal and state law, is intended to promote the finality of verdicts and to shield jurors from outside influences.

The Supreme Court also has been unwilling to intrude on deliberations.

In a 5-4 ruling in 1987, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion that rejected calls for a hearing to explore allegations made by jurors of drug and alcohol use by jurors during a criminal fraud trial.

"There is little doubt that post-verdict investigation into juror misconduct would in some instances lead to the invalidation of verdicts reached after irresponsible or improper juror behavior. It is not at all clear, however, that the jury system could survive such efforts to perfect it," O'Connor wrote.

In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said the right to an impartial jury was more important. "If, as is charged, members of petitioners' jury were intoxicated as a result of their use of drugs and alcohol to the point of sleeping through material portions of the trial, the verdict in this case must be set aside," he wrote.

In 2014, justices unanimously reaffirmed the sanctity of jury deliberations. The court rejected a challenge to a jury verdict in a civil case brought by a motorcycle rider who had his left leg amputated as a result of a traffic accident. He sought a new trial based on one juror's report that a second juror said during deliberations that her daughter had been at fault in a similar case and a lawsuit against the daughter would have "ruined her life."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion in that case left open the possibility that some comments might go too far.

"There may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged," Sotomayor wrote in a footnote to her opinion.

Pena Rodriguez's case is one such example, his lawyers wrote in their Supreme Court filing, because the juror "injected racial animus into the deliberations."

His legal team also said that the justices should resolve a split among federal and state courts "on this manifestly important question" of whether juror testimony can be used to demonstrate racial bias in deliberations.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Congress of American Indians are among the groups backing Pena Rodriguez, cataloguing examples of trials in which jurors uttered slurs or made derogatory remarks about Native American, African-American and Hispanic defendants.

Opposing the high court's involvement in this case, Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman wrote that the verdict was based on overwhelming evidence and that no juror suggested that the offensive comments affected or persuaded anyone else. Coffman also said Pena Rodriguez's lawyer might have picked up on the juror's alleged bias during jury selection, but failed to ask any questions about race or ethnicity.

The case is Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado, 15-606.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: cranky (#0)

"After a jury convicted Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez of attempted sexual assault involving teenage sisters at a Denver-area horse race track, two jurors provided his lawyer with sworn statements claiming that a third juror made derogatory remarks about Mexican men before voting guilty."

Well, the other 11 jurors (including these two snitches) also found him guilty, so I doubt this one juror's reasons changed anything.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   11:27:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

Well, the other 11 jurors (including these two snitches) also found him guilty, so I doubt this one juror's reasons changed anything.

So do I.

But SCOTUS could have rejected the petition for the writ of certiorari, I think.

That they are hearing arguments makes me think that SCOTUS may have found a new right.

There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't

cranky  posted on  2016-04-02   11:57:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: cranky (#2)

What about racial bias in favor of the defendant where, during deliberations, a juror says he will not convict because of the race of the defendant? What about jury nullification where, during deliberations, a juror refuses to convict because he believes the law to be unjust?

Would these be grounds for a mistrial?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   12:35:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#3)

Would these be grounds for a mistrial?

I do not know.

But I believe a judge in his/her instructions to the jury could instruct them what they may or may not consider as they weigh they evidence.

If jurors ignore or act contrary to the judges's instructions, that might be grounds for a mistral.

There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't

cranky  posted on  2016-04-02   13:08:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#3)

Would these be grounds for a mistrial?

Yes.

And when the justices rule that this can be examined, the power of jury nullification will be substantially eliminated. The "lone holdout" will always be able to be challenged and the verdict annulled ex post, if it is offensive to the ruling elite.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-04   13:54:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com