Posted on 04/06/2011 7:14:11 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
A female juror in a high-profile American mafia murder trial was sentenced to indefinite jury duty after giving racist answers to a court questionnaire.
The Asian woman in her 20s was asked along with hundreds of others to provide answers to the survey prior to serving on the jury for the trial of crime boss Vincent Basciano.
But the woman enraged a Federal Court judge in New York by answering the question, 'Name three people you least admire', with the answer: 'African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.'
When asked by a judge at Brooklyn Federal Court to explain her answer, she replied: 'You always hear about them in the news doing something.'
The woman, known only as 'Juror No. 799', went on to claim all police officers are lazy, and only use their sirens to bypass traffic jams.
Lawyers in the case successfully requested she be removed from jury duty in Basciano's trial due to her 'inappropriate' comments.
A furious judge, Nicholas Garaufis, held up the woman's questionnaire in court and told her: 'This is an outrage, and so are you!' Referring to her racist answers, Judge Garaufis sarcastically asked the juror: 'Why didn't you put Asians down also?'
The woman replied: 'Maybe I should have.'
Jurors in America have been known to try to escape jury duty by providing outlandish answers to jury questionnaires.
But the Asian woman's views evidently backfired, as she has since been told she will serve on the jury until the judge deems her ready for release.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Gawd, I hope you’re never placed in a position of power or authority over real humans.
You have the heart of a true tyrant.
Good grief.
Der Ditto has der fuhrer complex liken der judge. He vants to set up his own concentration camp fer der little fraulein who answered truthfully. Es verboten to answer truthfully.
In practice, the wise judge, so admired here by one (count them: 1) poster, sentenced the woman to an indefinite jury selection process duty, as I doubt any attorney would want her on his jury, unless only to end up with a hung jury (which the opposing side’s attorney would easily see through.)
Trials have ends. They finish. They are NOT indefinite.
You truly have no clue what you are talking about in connection to this entire topic, whether it’s the woman, the judge, juries or court processes.
Baloney.
Smart lady, stupid judge: what else is new?
I suppose the clever by half survey makers expected potential jurors to answer the question ‘Name three people you least admire’ as follows: Aunt Edna, Uncle Bert, and George Bush.
Well, any counter-posts after yours are nothing more than beating a dead horse.
Argument closed.
Good job.
Thought Police are on the march.
Coming soon to a government near you.
If she had answered, 'George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Sarah Palin', she would probably be on the cover of Time Magazine as Juror of the Century!
Sounds like the White House staff.
The answer the asian woman gave is not particularly racist in that area. The judge knows that.
‘Name three people you least admire’
Mr. Idiot Judge: If you ask the STUPIDASS question, then don’t complain about the answer. The question itself reeks of attempts to get answers to allow shysters to use their jury challenge modes. That question doesn’t belong in a jury selection process. Just another egomaniac judge that thinks he is omnipotent. He got his wanted press coverage. Now he can go back to being an idiot. Leave the lady alone and send her home. She does have freedom of speech you know.
Even if you don’t agree, she certainly has a right to that opinion. The Judge is dead wrong.
They don’t have to put her on any juries...they just make her appear for duty and not ever get selected.
The prosecution and defense in any case will probably not choose her ... I read it that she will continue to serve in the jury pool from which jurors that sit on a case will be picked. With those comments on a form, she is marked to be dismissed for cause every time.
Look up the definition of indefinite. A trial is by definition, indefinite. You never know for sure when it will be over. I was sworn into a jury last summer and the trial lasted exactly one hour before a conference was called and the defendant took a plea deal and they sent us home. It could have gone on for a day or week for all I knew. It's indefinite!
If the judge decides to keep her sitting around the courthouse getting paid $40 a day, for just as long as the jurors who are doing their duty and will be hearing this case and also getting paid $40 a day, I'm perfectly fine with that. I doubt he will, but I would not have a problem with him if he did.
What the hell ever happened to Freepers who believed that citizens do have duties?
Sounds like you would would be comfortable in a country that did not have trial by jury -- like Nazi Germany where they didn't bother the people with trivial things like fairness and respecting the right of fellow citizens. That is what you are defending here.
I prefer the US Constitution and being judged by a jury of my peers.
If you don't have a problem with her answers, for what ever reason she gave them, you are an idiot. The bitch is getting exactly what she deserves and if I were the judge, I'd do the same to you if you disregarded the very idea of due process the way she did.
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.