Posted on 09/03/2015 4:41:00 PM PDT by Coleus
A state appeals court voiced deep concerns Monday about “racial profiling” during criminal trials in New Jersey and directed judges in lower courts to instantly remove any jurors who display conscious or subconscious racist beliefs. The directive stems from a case that resulted in the convictions of two black men imprisoned in 2012 for carjacking a luxury sedan. At their trial, one juror had revealed a “subliminal” and “deeply-rooted, latent racial bias” against African-Americans, said the appeals panel, which overturned the verdict and ordered new court proceedings for both men.
“Racial bias is repugnant to any notion of fairness or impartiality; it is the antithesis of justice under the law,” Judge Jose L. Fuentes wrote in an impassioned, 47-page decision issued Monday. The ruling, which legal experts said affirmed minority residents’ constitutional right to a fair trial, is binding on all New Jersey trial courts. “Many openly doubt whether the American system of criminal justice system is infected with racism,” said Lawrence S. Lustberg, a lawyer at the Gibbons firm and past president of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey. “Judge Fuentes’ uniquely stirring language sends an appropriately strong message: Judges should do everything they possibly can to assure that no verdict is the result of racial prejudice, even if that prejudice is more subtle than overt.”
Rashon Brown, 25, and Malik Q. Smith, 24, were both sentenced to prison terms of more than 20 years for carjacking a brand-new Infiniti from a woman in Union County in 2008. They were also convicted of carrying unlicensed firearms and resisting arrest, among other charges.
One of the jurors, who is not named but is described in court papers as an elderly woman, became concerned as she headed to the courthouse for the second day of jury deliberations. She reported seeing “two dark black fellas” emerging from a park near her home at 7 a.m., what she described as an unusual sight. It brought on fears that the two black defendants might retaliate against her, she told the trial judge, Joseph P. Donohue, during a private conference in his chambers.
“I was concerned about my well-being,” the juror told the judge. She continued: “It’s a case that they’re both black, and I’m on the case. And I said, gee, that’s funny, you know. I wasn’t concerned about it when I first went on the case, but I was wondering if they would stalk you if they’re found guilty, whatever, you know, if they would go after any of the jurors.” Donohue allowed the juror to remain on the case, as well as several other members of the jury who had spoken with Donohue about her concerns. Another juror had remarked to the judge that the elderly woman lived in an area that was mostly “Italian and white people … she was kind of nervous.”
But writing for the appeals court, Fuentes said the judge should have dismissed the juror on the spot and then questioned other members of the jury as to whether they could still render a fair verdict. Instead, Donohue seemed to excuse the woman’s remarks, the appeals court said. “In her own words, she revealed how she immediately construed the presence of two African-American men in her all-white neighborhood as a menacing sign of possible retaliation by defendants, merely because they were also African-American men,” Fuentes wrote. “Even more disturbing, however, is the trial judge’s reaction to [her] revelations. The judge was not only oblivious to the juror’s unmistakable racial bias, but he actually endorsed the juror’s misguided apprehensions.”
When an attorney for Brown asked that two of the jurors be replaced for their remarks, Donohue denied the request and said, “We expect to some extent people have developed certain prejudices, some fixed ways of thinking.” Fuentes also mentioned New Jersey’s checkered history with racial profiling. The state police were under federal monitoring for 10 years, until 2009, after showing a pattern of disproportionately stopping minorities on the state’s highways.
“The essence of racial profiling is to associate criminality or wrongdoing as an aspect of a person’s race or ethnic background,” he wrote. “We have unequivocally condemned this specious and hateful practice when it was used by the law enforcement community in this state to target minority motorists as they traveled our highways. We must adopt the same policy of zero tolerance when a version of such an odious concept contaminates, to any degree, the jury’s deliberative process.”
Alexander Shalom, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, welcomed the ruling. “Everyone who is a part of the criminal justice system — from police officers and prosecutors to judges and jurors — must confront and address conscious and unconscious biases that have plagued our criminal justice process for too long,” Shalom said. Judge Amy O’Connor joined Fuentes’s decision. Judge Victor Ashrafi did not join, but he issued a one-paragraph opinion concurring in the result and also voted to overturn Brown and Smith’s convictions. “During deliberations, a juror expressed to other jurors and the judge an unjustified fear of retaliation by defendants because of an event unconnected to the trial and an invidious racial stereotype she harbored,” Ashrafi wrote. “The impartiality of the jury was thus tainted.” Public defenders for Brown and Smith declined to comment. The Union County Prosecutor’s Office may ask the state Supreme Court to review the case. A spokesman there declined to comment.
It's little wonder "no snitching" and "didn't see nothing" is the code of the streets.
Dime someone out and he's going to remember you when he's set free.
Even though this is a state appeal court, guaranteed coming soon to a SCOTUS decree. Then a other huge federal police force. (Key word, Force)
The Thought Police.
So will courts also now screen prospective jurors for possible anti-white, anti-cop, and anti-law-enforcement hatreds??
That would probably eliminate about half of a certain inner-city minority from consideration.
So the fact that the dirbags were guilty has no bearing? Its more important that an elderly lady had expressed concerns for her safety and a judge perceived that as latent racism? This country is going to shit.............
“Subliminal” and “deeply-rooted, latent racial bias” is utterly meaningless without objective criteria.
In past, courts have ruled that jurors have very wide latitude to determine guilt or innocence, and that bias must be blatant, obvious and expressed as such to sway the outcome.
In fact, grounds for a mistrial *based* on such bias is such that those jurors can be held in contempt for their actions, which means their expressions must be beyond doubt.
When you serve as a judge or a juror you have to set all that aside.
You must judge any particular case based on the evidence presented and the law.
Nothing else.
Unless you and other jurors do a jury nullification of a law.
That is an ideal. Tragically, far too often other factors come into play.
One that made me wince was the trial of a child killer in California. The evidence was damning. As the jury was led out to carry out their deliberations, the killer flipped them off.
After the guilty verdict, one of the jurors said, “I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he flipped us off. Then I knew he was guilty.”
Even this was not enough to overturn the sentence and declare a mistrial.
Or wear your Tea Party t-shirt.
Oh, and albinos... they need to be hanged to. Albinos.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.