Man avoids death penalty because jury wasn't black enough

In what way is it a "jury of their peers" if it doesn't accurately reflect the composition of their community?

 

Again:

The 14th Amendment was not enacted to protect "one-Toed, underweight Samoans with a lisp." Though it certainly would protect Samoans.

This has been the law of the land since 1880.

I promise that the Republic will survive.

 

God forbid.

 

He wasn't found innocent. He had his death sentence commuted to life in prison. You can argue whether that is appropriate, but argue on the correct terms.

 

I'm not sure I'm following the argument. Though, I'm also not that smart.

Wife-abusers don't want a jury full of women. Teachers who molest kids don't want a jury filled with parents with kids that age. There are jurors eliminated every day because they aren't what one side or the other want. And skin color is no more or less a qualifier than how old your kids are or your sex.

 

No, you've got it.

But pre-emptory challenges aside, you have a Constitutional right to a trial by a jury of your peers.

If the final jury didn't meet that standard in an appeals court judge's eyes, then he can set aside the verdict or change the sentence.

 

yes!!! kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out!!!

 

Yes, it is.

The 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment.

 

I feel like I'm being a little obtuse, so let me explain it better.

Race is different. It simply is. Any argument otherwise is academic, because race has been different since the 13th through 15th amendments were enacted after the Civil War. The Strauder case I linked to was decided in 1880, and directly held that West Virginia could not have a law that stopped blacks from serving on juries - because it wasn't fair to the defendant. Under the 14th Amendment. A few years earlier, a series of cases called the Slaughterhouse Cases held that the 14th Amendment applied to blacks specifically and race more generally after a group of butchers tried to sue for Equal Protection because of some stringent new safety codes. Race is different.

Anyway, what Strauder hinted at this case, Batson v. Kentucky, made settled law nearly 100 years later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky

You can't use race to disqualify jurors. You can't, can't, can't do it. It's settled Constitutional law. Any discussion otherwise, like I said, is academic. Which is fine. I like a good for-the-sake-of-argument debate more than anybody. But just make sure you know what you're up against.

In the real world, if you want to be angry at somebody, be angry at the prosecutors who played with fire. They knew what the law was. They tried to skirt it. Now, do people do so successfully? You would be naive to think otherwise. Certainly it happened in the Simpson trial, all the way down to the battle over venue. But, again, you can't try it, lose, and complain. Because the law is the law.

 

In North Carolina, does a jury have to vote unanimously to impose a death sentence? If so, I can see being skeptical of the judge's ruling. If it takes less than a majority, that changes things a lot.

 

Should be less than unanimous. Less than a majority to impose death would be a helluva big problem.

 

lol