Atlanta Journal-Constitution Uncovers Blatant Racial Bias by District Attorney
May 17
Jur-E Bulletin: May 10, 2019
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Uncovers Blatant Racial Bias by District Attorney
As previously reported in Jur-E Bulletin, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 vacated the conviction of Tyrone Foster due to the prosecutor’s blatant violation of the Batson doctrine. Now the Floyd County District Attorney seeks the death penalty against Foster in a re-trial. Atlanta’s flagship newspaper, quoting former and current office employees, uncovers what the prosecutor thinks about black jurors. It appears few lessons have been learned in the DA’s office.
U.S. District Court Leaders Take Steps to Increase Representative Jury Pools
Asian-American Teacher Reflects on Her Being Struck During Jury Selection = A Critical Lesson Provided
As a registered voter for the past 42 years, Deborah Wong has been summoned for jury duty several times and experienced voir dire twice. She would love to serve on a jury, but has not made to the final jury. She observes that court actors seem to be a reticent to allow teachers and other well-educated persons to serve on juries.
Massachusetts Sets Prospective Voir Dire Rules (1) In Interracial Murder Cases, Upon Request, Judges Must Allow Individual Voir Dire on the Issue of Potential Racial Bias
In Massachusetts v. Colon, that state’s highest court carefully examined the defendant’s several claims of error regarding jury selection. While rejecting Mr. Colon’s claim that the trial judge unlawfully prohibited voir dire questions about racial or ethnic bias, the court abrogated a prior decision and announced a prospective rule that murder defendants are entitled to voir dire on such biases where the victim has a different background than the accused.
(2) Where a Party Uses a Language Interpreter, Judges Encouraged to Ask About Juror Bias Toward Non-English Speakers
In Commonwealth v. Espinal, the trial judge denied a Latino defendant’s request to ask prospective jurors about potential bias against non-English-speaking persons. On review, the high court stated, “The record on appeal contains a significant number of studies that indicate disparities in rates of conviction and the severity of sentences imposed between defendants who used interpreters and those who did not. Given these disparities, we recognize the importance, in appropriate circumstances, of questioning the venire, at least collectively, concerning language-related bias. Nor is such questioning limited to situations where a defendant speaks Spanish. Our courts serve individuals who communicate in many diverse languages from all parts of the world. Whether an individual requires the use of interpretation from Arabic, Vietnamese, or any other language, there is potential for preconceived notions among jurors with respect to an inability to speak English…. Given this, where the fact of a defendant's inability to speak English is reasonably likely to become known to the jury, we urge the trial judge to inquire, upon the request of the defendant, whether any prospective juror harbors bias toward non-English speakers. Such a question may be posed through individual voir dire, collective voir dire, or a written questionnaire.”
Jury Trials May Become Mandatory Throughout Argentina
The Argentina Supreme Court of Justice recently announced that during 2019 it will announce a constitutional ruling on the question whether the classic common-law form of jury trials (general verdicts, voir dire, legal instructions from a judge to a pure lay person jury, etc.) must be used in all provinces of the country. Currently, not every Argentina province requires a jury trial in serious criminal cases. Some use mixed juries (lay persons accompanied by professional jurists), while others use pure lay persons.
Notice of new or upcoming articles, projects, symposia, and other jury-related events is appreciated. We strive to have to keep the "Upcoming Events" section relevant and up to date. When alerting us to articles published elsewhere on the Web, please include the URL. We cannot reprint articles from other sources without permission, and generally only provide a link.
Disclaimer: Opinions contained herein, as well as material appearing in external sites to which this publication provides links, do not necessarily reflect those of the National Center for State Courts. Presence of any such material should not be construed as support by the National Center for State Courts or any of its associations, affiliates, or employees.
Broken Links: Although the Editor makes an effort to ensure that links included in the newsletter are active at the time it is sent, there will be instances when readers find that links are broken or un-viewable for other reasons. Unfortunately, this will happen occasionally.
NCSC maintains exclusive use of its subscriber lists. Information contained therein will only be used by NCSC and is never distributed to other organizations. All communications from NCSC contain an opt-out provision for your convenience.