Alemeda County Ca. Juries and Jews

[Jack]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/na...rtner=homepage

Alemeda County Ca. prosecutors exclude Jews and possibly black women from juries in capital cases.

Holy crap, I know lawyers suck, but I never thought they could sink this low.

[IAm@Work.com]

I find nothing surprising about this NYT story. The only thin I find offensive is the way it is presented.

As part of the voir dier process I would expect every prosecutor countrywide to ask all prospective jurors if they would be willing to invoke the death penalty. If all the Jews in the pool said "no" and were rejected, why would you start a rant that lawyers cannot sink any lower?

[Malik Shabazz]

There are two separate issues here:

1) It is illegal to strike members of a jury pool solely on the basis of race, religion, etc. This was established by the US Supreme Court some time during the 1980's.

2) It is not illegal to strike members of a jury pool based on their answers during voir dire (i.e., "for cause"). The fact that all members of a jury pool who are striken for cause happen to share the same race, religion, etc. may be unfortunate -- and it may be challenged on appeal -- but it is not illegal.

It isn't clear from the Times article (which I didn't read carefully) whether Jews are being excluded from juries in capital cases because they are Jewish or because of their answers in voir dire.

[Griffin 9]

Malik, why do you know all of these legal terms? Are you a big-city trial attorney?

[Malik Shabazz]

Originally Posted by Will Durant

voir dire

ETYMOLOGY: Anglo-Norman, to speak the truth : Latin vrus, true; see wr-o- in Appendix I + Latin dcere, to say; see deik- in Appendix I.

I should have been clearer. Voir dire is the process by which potential jurors are questioned by the attorneys representing both parties in an effort to discover any potential biases or conflict of interests.

If a potential juror is dismissed based on her/his answers during voir dire, that potential juror is said to have been dismissed "for cause."

[Pseudolus]

Dismissing jurors is an interesting business. (All the following is IIRC, subject to correction by anyone who actually knows anything.)

There are two ways a juror can be kicked out of the jury pool:

1) "For cause" - something about the person - occupation, statements, etc. - shows the inability to be sufficiently impartial. The judge agrees that this standard has been met.

2) Via a "peremptory challenge" - one side nixes the juror without having to give any reason at all.

Traditionally, each side was given an unlimited number of the first kind of off-kickings, and some finite number of the second (one source gives 15). These dismissals could be for any reason at all - good reasons, bad reasons, "hunches", whatever.

The more recent changes Malik mentions narrow the pereptory challenge to "any reason, EXCEPT for a few specific reasons: race, religion, sex, etc. It seems odd that you could exclude a person because you don't like his tie, or you were once dumped by a person of the same name, or becuase the dice you rolled came up "boxcars", but you can't do so because he's Jewish, or black, or a she. Also, it would seem to be difficult to prove, really, why someone was excluded. The challenging party could always claim some other reason.

Frankly, if there are going to be peremptory challenges at all, I think they should be totally up to the whim of the parties involved. Make them a small number, maybe, and tighten up the "for cause" rules, but I don't like the "for any reason BUT" way of doing things.

[Malik Shabazz]

Originally Posted by Pseudolus

The more recent changes Malik mentions narrow the pereptory challenge to "any reason, EXCEPT for a few specific reasons: race, religion, sex, etc. It seems odd that you could exclude a person because you don't like his tie, or you were once dumped by a person of the same name, or becuase the dice you rolled came up "boxcars", but you can't do so because he's Jewish, or black, or a she. Also, it would seem to be difficult to prove, really, why someone was excluded. The challenging party could always claim some other reason.

It is difficult to establish that an attorney is excluding potential jurors solely on basis of race, religion, etc., and I'm not entirely sure how the appellants were able to convince the appeals courts that that was going on. Maybe in some instances there were written policies or notes that indicated the attorney's intent?

[Spidurman]

Originally Posted by Pseudolus

Dismissing jurors is an interesting business. (All the following is IIRC, subject to correction by anyone who actually knows anything.)

There are two ways a juror can be kicked out of the jury pool:

1) "For cause" - something about the person - occupation, statements, etc. - shows the inability to be sufficiently impartial. The judge agrees that this standard has been met.

2) Via a "peremptory challenge" - one side nixes the juror without having to give any reason at all.

Traditionally, each side was given an unlimited number of the first kind of off-kickings, and some finite number of the second (one source gives 15). These dismissals could be for any reason at all - good reasons, bad reasons, "hunches", whatever.

The more recent changes Malik mentions narrow the pereptory challenge to "any reason, EXCEPT for a few specific reasons: race, religion, sex, etc. It seems odd that you could exclude a person because you don't like his tie, or you were once dumped by a person of the same name, or becuase the dice you rolled came up "boxcars", but you can't do so because he's Jewish, or black, or a she. Also, it would seem to be difficult to prove, really, why someone was excluded. The challenging party could always claim some other reason.

Frankly, if there are going to be peremptory challenges at all, I think they should be totally up to the whim of the parties involved. Make them a small number, maybe, and tighten up the "for cause" rules, but I don't like the "for any reason BUT" way of doing things.

Essentially (non legal summary):

For cause challenges are judge's decision and are generally for a reason that would violate the 'fair and impartial' concept.

Peremptory challenges are by one side and no reasons given.

When I sat on a jury - people that had professions overly relevant to the trial (among witnesses were a taxi driver and a chiropractor) or too close a connection were dismissed. An example would be someone who is suing a chiropractor hearing a case involving one.

Lawyers' challenges - they made an X on a piece of paper given to them by the clerk. The clerk gave the paper to the judge, who would then say "#6 you can go" (etc). Absolutely no reasons are given.

[Elisha]

Originally Posted by Spidurman

Essentially (non legal summary):

Lawyers' challenges - they made an X on a piece of paper given to them by the clerk. The clerk gave the paper to the judge, who would then say "#6 you can go" (etc). Absolutely no reasons are given.

In the Civil case I was one <1 year ago, the Lawyers actually said "#6, The court thanks you for your time and you are dismissed." or whatever.

[Narcisse Noir]

Originally Posted by Jack

Holy crap, I know lawyers suck, but I never thought they could sink this low.

Was I stooping low when I read a blanket statement allegedly made by a "Stanley Golde" and it occurred that there is a good chance that he is/was Jewish? What does it mean, regarding my stooping, that I was correct?


Malik, I don't know off the top of my head whether your "etc." includes ethnicity. I am curious whether that's a legal exclusion, and I can't myself remember.