Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy at the Political Forums; The Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-3 decision that racially or ethnically biased juries do not have a ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2017, 08:39 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,423
Thanks: 9,327
Thanked 14,144 Times in 8,536 Posts
Post SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-3 decision that racially or ethnically biased juries do not have a right to secrecy in deliberations. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined forces with the four liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “The nation must continue to make strides to overcome race-based discrimination,” Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “The progress that has already been made underlies the court’s insistence that blatant racial prejudice is antithetical to the functioning of the jury system and must be confronted in egregious cases.” The minority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the ruling was an injust violation of jurors’ privacy. In the case Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, a juror justified his or her decision in a sexual assault trial by saying: “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want.”
SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy - The Daily Beast
A Colorado man who was required to register as a sex offender after being convicted of unlawful sexual contact with two teenage girls will get a shot at a new trial, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled today. Miguel Peña-Rodriguez had asked a state trial court for a new trial after two jurors told his lawyers that a third juror had made racially biased remarks about Peña-Rodriguez and his main witness, who are both Hispanic. But the state trial court rejected Peña-Rodriguez’s request, citing a state evidentiary rule that generally bars jurors from testifying about statements made during deliberations that might call the verdict into question. In a major ruling on juror bias and fair trials, the Supreme Court reversed that holding by a vote of 5-3 and sent Peña-Rodriguez’s case back to the lower courts for them to consider the two jurors’ testimony for the first time.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court, in a decision joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The court began by acknowledging that Colorado’s “no impeachment” rule – which mirrors similar rules in the federal system and around the country – serves important purposes: It allows “full and vigorous discussions” among jurors, who do not need to worry about later efforts to pry into those deliberations, and it “gives stability and finality to verdicts.”

But those considerations, the court determined, must yield when there is evidence that a juror has relied on racial stereotypes or prejudice to convict a defendant. Racial bias, the court explained, is different and more serious than the concerns that led the court to reject proposed exceptions to the “no impeachment” rule in its earlier cases. Although the prior cases involved behavior that was “troubling and unacceptable,” the court continued, the conduct in those cases was “anomalous,” resulting from “a single jury—or juror—gone off course.” In contrast, racial bias in jury deliberations threatens not only the proceeding in which it occurs but also the administration of justice more broadly.

Similarly, while safeguards – such as the process by which the jury is screened and questioned – built into the jury system can help to detect other kinds of bias, the court reasoned, racial bias can be harder to root out. “Generic questions” about racial bias may not go far enough to expose it, the court observed, but more specific questions could actually make the problem worse. And jurors may be more reluctant to report racially biased statements by other members of the jury than, say, statements suggesting that a juror’s personal experiences with the subject matter of the dispute affected her vote. The court concluded that a “constitutional rule that racial bias in the justice system must be addressed—including, in some instances, after the verdict has been entered—is necessary to prevent a systemic loss of confidence in jury verdicts, a confidence that is a central premise of the Sixth Amendment trial right.”
Opinion analysis: Divided court rules for defendant in juror-bias case - SCOTUSblog

So the right-wing justices wanted to protect the bigot and allow his opinion to be "private".
Not when that opinion is being used to sentence a person as guilty...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 05:58 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 14,015
Thanks: 6,714
Thanked 7,575 Times in 4,786 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

The court rejected the protection of juries to deliberate openly in favor of identity politics.

Quote:
Although the prior cases involved behavior that was “troubling and unacceptable,” the court continued, the conduct in those cases was “anomalous,” resulting from “a single jury—or juror—gone off course
Yet, a single juror gone off course is exactly what is described here. The court's decision paves the way for any defendant who is a member of a racial minority to crack open jury deliberations to hunt for "discrimination".

No doubt Left wing simpletons will respond by claiming I favor "racism" in the jury room. Not at all, obtaining a criminal conviction requires a unanimous guilty vote. Meaning the jurors who accused another juror of racist remarks nonetheless voted to convict the defendent. Despicable as the alleged racist remark is there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendent.
__________________
Susan Rice misled about Benghazi, Obama promoted her to national security advisor. Flynn misled about his phone calls to the Russian ambassador, Trump fired him as national security advisor. Obama rewarded spreading misleading information, Trump punishes those doing it.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 10:39 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,293
Thanks: 6,380
Thanked 5,025 Times in 3,116 Posts
Default Re: SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

The troubling aspect of decisions such as this is that judges all the way from the traffic court judge that hates Maserati's to the 8 or 9 sitting at the highest level have decided that their job is not to interpret law but rather to make law.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 10:55 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,423
Thanks: 9,327
Thanked 14,144 Times in 8,536 Posts
Default Re: SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The court rejected the protection of juries to deliberate openly in favor of identity politics.
“I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want.”
That is "identity politics" to you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Yet, a single juror gone off course is exactly what is described here. The court's decision paves the way for any defendant who is a member of a racial minority to crack open jury deliberations to hunt for "discrimination".
People like you disgust me.
OPEN AND SHUT CASE of bigotry and rather than fight / recognize that you want to try to protect potential mislabeling.

Yes. A SINGLE Juror went off course here.
NO juror should be going off course when it comes to racism being used to declare guilt in a courtroom.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
No doubt Left wing simpletons will respond by claiming I favor "racism" in the jury room. Not at all, obtaining a criminal conviction requires a unanimous guilty vote. Meaning the jurors who accused another juror of racist remarks nonetheless voted to convict the defendent. Despicable as the alleged racist remark is there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendent.
This is why right-wingers hate the courts so much.
They can't understand the purity of the morality involved.

You think it necessary to ignore this problem with one guy you assume is guilty just because the POTENTIAL toes of hypothetical people will be stepped on you ignore the ACTUAL toes of this defendant.

While the distinction is often meaningless in actual practice, it's not that you "favor" racism.
You want to prevent addressing racism because you're afraid that others like you could be judged / evaluated. Which is absolutely the wrong idea when it comes to making sure lady justice is truly blind.

And regarding your assumptions of guilt...
In the end, the jury deadlocked on the most serious charge, a felony, but convicted the defendant, Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez, of three misdemeanors. He was sentenced to two years’ probation.
He was convicted of only three misdemeanors. If we ignore crap like what actually happened here, he could have been of the felony as well.
You may be quick to ignore the rights of the accused. That's not right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo
The troubling aspect of decisions such as this is that judges all the way from the traffic court judge that hates Maserati's to the 8 or 9 sitting at the highest level have decided that their job is not to interpret law but rather to make law.
Out come the right-wing euphemisms because some people can't address the actual underlying issue.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 11:21 AM
jamesrage's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,352
Thanks: 580
Thanked 650 Times in 434 Posts
Default Re: SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-3 decision that racially or ethnically biased juries do not have a right to secrecy in deliberations. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined forces with the four liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “The nation must continue to make strides to overcome race-based discrimination,” Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “The progress that has already been made underlies the court’s insistence that blatant racial prejudice is antithetical to the functioning of the jury system and must be confronted in egregious cases.” The minority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the ruling was an injust violation of jurors’ privacy. In the case Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, a juror justified his or her decision in a sexual assault trial by saying: “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want.”
SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy - The Daily Beast
A Colorado man who was required to register as a sex offender after being convicted of unlawful sexual contact with two teenage girls will get a shot at a new trial, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled today. Miguel Peña-Rodriguez had asked a state trial court for a new trial after two jurors told his lawyers that a third juror had made racially biased remarks about Peña-Rodriguez and his main witness, who are both Hispanic. But the state trial court rejected Peña-Rodriguez’s request, citing a state evidentiary rule that generally bars jurors from testifying about statements made during deliberations that might call the verdict into question. In a major ruling on juror bias and fair trials, the Supreme Court reversed that holding by a vote of 5-3 and sent Peña-Rodriguez’s case back to the lower courts for them to consider the two jurors’ testimony for the first time.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court, in a decision joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The court began by acknowledging that Colorado’s “no impeachment” rule – which mirrors similar rules in the federal system and around the country – serves important purposes: It allows “full and vigorous discussions” among jurors, who do not need to worry about later efforts to pry into those deliberations, and it “gives stability and finality to verdicts.”

But those considerations, the court determined, must yield when there is evidence that a juror has relied on racial stereotypes or prejudice to convict a defendant. Racial bias, the court explained, is different and more serious than the concerns that led the court to reject proposed exceptions to the “no impeachment” rule in its earlier cases. Although the prior cases involved behavior that was “troubling and unacceptable,” the court continued, the conduct in those cases was “anomalous,” resulting from “a single jury—or juror—gone off course.” In contrast, racial bias in jury deliberations threatens not only the proceeding in which it occurs but also the administration of justice more broadly.

Similarly, while safeguards – such as the process by which the jury is screened and questioned – built into the jury system can help to detect other kinds of bias, the court reasoned, racial bias can be harder to root out. “Generic questions” about racial bias may not go far enough to expose it, the court observed, but more specific questions could actually make the problem worse. And jurors may be more reluctant to report racially biased statements by other members of the jury than, say, statements suggesting that a juror’s personal experiences with the subject matter of the dispute affected her vote. The court concluded that a “constitutional rule that racial bias in the justice system must be addressed—including, in some instances, after the verdict has been entered—is necessary to prevent a systemic loss of confidence in jury verdicts, a confidence that is a central premise of the Sixth Amendment trial right.”
Opinion analysis: Divided court rules for defendant in juror-bias case - SCOTUSblog

So the right-wing justices wanted to protect the bigot and allow his opinion to be "private".
Not when that opinion is being used to sentence a person as guilty...
SCOTUS did the right thing. We should know exactly how jurors came their decision that the defendant is guilty or innocent. If a juror used racial stereotypes to make their decision in convicting or not convicting someone then the ruling should be overturned.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 12:31 PM
Mellon_Collie's Avatar
Species 5618
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern Oregon
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,311
Thanks: 908
Thanked 1,746 Times in 1,067 Posts
Default Re: SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
The troubling aspect of decisions such as this is that judges all the way from the traffic court judge that hates Maserati's to the 8 or 9 sitting at the highest level have decided that their job is not to interpret law but rather to make law.
Racial bias is already grounds for a new trial when it is found in judges, what the hell does that have to do with whether or not its allow to remain secret in juries?
__________________
They say there is
NO MONEY FOR SCHOOLS, NO MONEY FOR HOMELESS, NO MONEY FOR VETERANS ..

So how is there ALWAY MONEY FOR WAR?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2017, 04:23 PM
Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,998
Thanks: 270
Thanked 1,322 Times in 822 Posts
Default Re: SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

While I have no problem with discrimination claims being investigated, it should be a requirement to show that such discrimination affected the vote of the other jurors.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to loboloco For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2017, 07:25 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 14,015
Thanks: 6,714
Thanked 7,575 Times in 4,786 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
“I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want.”
That is "identity politics" to you?



People like you disgust me.
OPEN AND SHUT CASE of bigotry and rather than fight / recognize that you want to try to protect potential mislabeling.

Yes. A SINGLE Juror went off course here.
NO juror should be going off course when it comes to racism being used to declare guilt in a courtroom.



This is why right-wingers hate the courts so much.
They can't understand the purity of the morality involved.

You think it necessary to ignore this problem with one guy you assume is guilty just because the POTENTIAL toes of hypothetical people will be stepped on you ignore the ACTUAL toes of this defendant.

While the distinction is often meaningless in actual practice, it's not that you "favor" racism.
You want to prevent addressing racism because you're afraid that others like you could be judged / evaluated. Which is absolutely the wrong idea when it comes to making sure lady justice is truly blind.

And regarding your assumptions of guilt...
In the end, the jury deadlocked on the most serious charge, a felony, but convicted the defendant, Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez, of three misdemeanors. He was sentenced to two years’ probation.
He was convicted of only three misdemeanors. If we ignore crap like what actually happened here, he could have been of the felony as well.
You may be quick to ignore the rights of the accused. That's not right.



Out come the right-wing euphemisms because some people can't address the actual underlying issue.
Exactly as predicted you erupt in self righteous outrage appointing yourself as some kind of morally superior PC police. Instead of looking at the issue at hand, the Court's decision to let racial identity politics invade jury deliberations, you demogogue including the absurd application of so-called "moral purity" to the SCOTUS embracing Left wing identity politics.

The SCOTUS opinion draws a clear distinction from precedent where jury deliberations are considered confidential even when they have "aberrations" by individual jurors to the new standard where all remarks in the jury's deliberations are subject to examination for "racism." As you point out the defendant was found not guilty of the most serious charge but guilty of others showing the jury considered each charge on the evidence, not racist stereotypes. But lo and behold, the imperial wizards of the SCOTUS ruled that all jury deliberations are subject to examination by the judiciary in the search for PC purity. Of course juror statements that the defendant is a "Conservative" or Bible thumper are exempt from the court's review but racial remarks "threaten" the system even when the jury's verdict shows no evidence of racial bias.
__________________
Susan Rice misled about Benghazi, Obama promoted her to national security advisor. Flynn misled about his phone calls to the Russian ambassador, Trump fired him as national security advisor. Obama rewarded spreading misleading information, Trump punishes those doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2017, 12:21 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,797
Thanks: 1,822
Thanked 30,121 Times in 17,799 Posts
Default Re: SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

I'll believe the sincerity of attacking free thought by the Liberals on the Supreme Court when a case gets overturned when a black woman says "I think the defendant did it, but too many black men are in jail so I'm going to vote "not guilty", instead, and set my brother free."...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2017, 04:40 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,423
Thanks: 9,327
Thanked 14,144 Times in 8,536 Posts
Default Re: SCOTUS: Racially Biased Juries Have No Secrecy

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
I'll believe the sincerity of attacking free thought by the Liberals on the Supreme Court when a case gets overturned when a black woman says "I think the defendant did it, but too many black men are in jail so I'm going to vote "not guilty", instead, and set my brother free."...
Can you show any such example?

I think part of the defining part here is there is no question regarding what the guy said: "“I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want.”"

Most people are smarter than that. I wish it were that easy to identify...


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger
Exactly as predicted you erupt in self righteous outrage appointing yourself as some kind of morally superior PC police. Instead of looking at the issue at hand, the Court's decision to let racial identity politics invade jury deliberations, you demogogue including the absurd application of so-called "moral purity" to the SCOTUS embracing Left wing identity politics.
It is downright mind-boggling how you can claim I am ignoring "the issue at hand" when I am directly talking about his quote while you cannot even try to do so.
Instead, you try to summarize criticism of a juror saying "“I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want.”" as:
  • morally superior PC police
  • racial identity politics
  • absurd application

Any rational person would recognize this juror employed identity judicial activism, but instead of a stark and honest acknowledgement of that you try to attack those who recognize this as wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger
The SCOTUS opinion draws a clear distinction from precedent where jury deliberations are considered confidential even when they have "aberrations" by individual jurors to the new standard where all remarks in the jury's deliberations are subject to examination for "racism."
That's not what happened here.
What you just described as "the new standard" just plain does not exist.
But I understand your willingness to lie and claim it does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger
As you point out the defendant was found not guilty of the most serious charge but guilty of others showing the jury considered each charge on the evidence, not racist stereotypes. But lo and behold, the imperial wizards of the SCOTUS ruled that all jury deliberations are subject to examination by the judiciary in the search for PC purity.
Again, the statement was
"“I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want.”"
It boggles my mind that you think acknowledging that as wrong is "PC purity".


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger
Of course juror statements that the defendant is a "Conservative" or Bible thumper are exempt from the court's review but racial remarks "threaten" the system even when the jury's verdict shows no evidence of racial bias.
Can you show ANY such example?
If not, you've perpetrated the ridiculous strawman of making up a hypothetical situation which NOBODY has had a chance to give comment on and then immediately pretending you're a mind-reader to declare what other people's opinions of that are.

If ANYBODY were to say:
"“I think he did it because he’s ________, and ________ take whatever they want.”"
and substitute "conservative" or "bible thumper" in that sentence, THE SAME JUDICIAL OUTCOME should be observed. Such behavior by a juror is egregious and should warrant exclusion from the jury process.


Quite frankly, the approach of some Republicans in this thread is astounding.
We have an actual case of demonstrated bigotry, and some right-wingers are more concerned about what could happen regarding their fears on a standard rather than admit that the case that is directly in front of us should be addressed and the law requires us to address it.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 03-10-2017 at 04:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
biased, have, juries, racially, scotus, secrecy

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0