Jeffrey Bellin a professor at William &
Mary Law School writes in the USA Today, it's illegal to eliminate jurors
solely on the basis of race.
But a recent appellate court decision shows how
easy it is to circumvent the rule meant to ensure a fair and
balanced jury, which is a cornerstone of the American justice
system.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruling in Connecticut
v. Holmes — the appeal of a Connecticut murder case that
ultimately landed a black man in prison after a potential African-American
juror was eliminated — should alarm anyone who cares about democracy.
During jury selection in the original case,
"W.T.," who was African American and being interviewed by both the
prosecution and the defense as a potential juror, expressed concerns about law
enforcement in answer to questions posed by the prosecutor.
"Some things are not fair," W.T. said. He also
stated that “sometimes . . . when I see the police in back of me, I wonder, you
know, if I’m going to be stopped.”
But W.T. also emphasized that he would follow the law and
"judge (the case) by the facts."
Still, the prosecutor eliminated W.T. The state explained
that the elimination was "race-neutral" and expressed concern about
the fact that W.T.'s family members "have been convicted and have
served time. ... If we had a Caucasian who was in the same situation,"
they would also have eliminated him from the jury, the state
said.
But I suspect few people who read W.T.'s full
statement would have agreed with the prosecutor's decision. W.T. comes across
as a thoughtful, candid person, the kind of person we want
on juries.
As Connecticut appellate Judge Douglas Lavine noted in his
concurring opinion, the views W.T. expressed were “by no means radical or
unreasonable. On the contrary, they appear to be logical, fact-based, and
understandable.”
But attorneys have a limited number of chances
(that number varies by state) to remove potential jurors, for
any reason at all, and with no explanation given. And until
1986, those reasons could have included race. But the Batson rule,
named after the Supreme
Court decision, was intended to change all of that.
Defendants can use the rule to challenge the elimination of
a juror if they think the prosecutor's choice was based on race. And
in this case, the defendant did.
For the Batson challenge to have worked, the
defendant had to show that the prosecutor made the decision
based primarily on race and with the intention to discriminate — something
that's difficult to prove when prosecutors can easily use reasons related to
race, that are deemed "race-neutral," to eliminate jurors.
The state claiming that a Caucasian juror would
have been eliminated for expressing the same concerns about police sounds
good but likely wouldn't happen. That level of police fear and
discrimination is tied much more closely to the black experience in America.
The trial judge in the original case upheld
W.T.'s elimination, stating that the prosecutor's decision was
"race-neutral."
The appellate court also upheld the ruling.
The Batson challenge may have changed procedures,
but September's Connecticut v.
Holmes appellate ruling shows that the results are still the
same — prosecutors who want to eliminate black jurors can do so in a way
that's frequently incontestable.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment