No white defendant should ever face a jury which contains any blacks. Right?
“”No white defendant should ever face a jury which contains any blacks. Right?””
***
Oh no, of course... that’s completely different. Cause...
‘whitey got it comin’.
I don’t know if that’s what she’s saying. Maybe she doesn’t know what she’s saying. There is case law that using peremptory channels to exclude blacks as potential jurors is unconstitutional, and might be grounds for a new trial, or if in progress, a mistrial. I’m skeptical that this is the case here. A challenge for cause is another matter, which seems to be what was done here, but she says that the exclusions appeared to be pretext.
Haven’t read the transcript of the voir dire. Don’t intend to read the transcript. The case is interesting, but not all that interesting to me. If anyone has taken the trouble to read the voire dire transcript, or intends to, keep us posted here on Freep.
I would only want rural country folks (preferable cowboys) on mine no city folk.
Seems like the thinking about “a jury of peers” would have to work both ways on something like this & decisions based on that might still cause serious problems for some in the community, or even on a national basis.
“No white defendant should ever face a jury which contains any blacks. Right?”
Or a jury that contains no whites?