Posted on 01/08/2018 8:19:28 AM PST by Dacula
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put a halt to Georgia’s plans to execute condemned killer Keith Tharpe, directing the federal appeals court in Atlanta to take a closer look at claims that one of Tharpe’s jurors voted for the death sentence because Tharpe was black. By a 6-3 vote, the high court questioned a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals not even to consider Tharpe’s latest appeal involving claims of racial bias on the part of the juror. Death-row inmate Keith Tharpe. (Georgia Department of Corrections) The Atlanta Journal-Constitution “It may be that, at the end of the day, Tharpe should not receive (permission to pursue his appeal),” the court said, in an unsigned opinion. But it’s possible the juror’s bias prejudiced the case against Tharpe, the court said. The U.S. Supreme Court halted Tharpe’s scheduled execution on the night it was to be carried out in September. The dramatic stay was ordered after Tharpe had eaten what he believed to be his last meal. Seven years after his conviction, Tharpe’s lawyers interviewed juror Barney Gattie. “After studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls, ” said Gattie, according to an affidavit he signed years after the trial. The murder victim, who was Tharpe’s sister-in-law, came from a family of “nice black folks, ” Gattie said. “If they had been the type Tharpe is, then picking between life and death for Tharpe wouldn’t have mattered so much. My feeling is, what would be the difference?” Gattie, who is now deceased, also used a racial slur referring to Tharpe, the affidavit said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
That should put a stop to things.
I wonder if the condemned man was white the supreme court would have reached the same ruling?
I guess if someone got on the panel who said “I doubt that white men have souls” something analogous could happen.
Remember, our trendy “liberals” might be on the next hanging jury. That’s why we ought to care.
I can say that I, as a honky, would be all over Gattie like white on rice about the spiritual side of this, let alone the legal aspects. I’ve come to a conclusion that black people don’t have a problem with “no soul.” In fact on the main their souls seem to be larger. The problem is what those souls are filled with. Which is a “liberal” problem. The bigger the soul, the worse the consequences if it’s packed with garbage.
What Bible was he reading?
I wonder if the condemned man was white the supreme court would have reached the same ruling?
No.
“Seven years after his conviction, Tharpe’s lawyers interviewed juror Barney Gattie.”
Utterly ridiculous.
L
This is kinda dumb. People need to read up on jury nullification.
And for all we know, the juror was simply coupling her belief regarding the guilt of this man with what she was seeing in the bible. i.e. the bible was “confirming”, at least in her mind, what she saw in this defendant.
But still, this is dumb. The only way it should even be remotely considered would be if she said she found him guilty because she hates black people. What even destroys that is that her opinion simply matched that of the other jurors regarding guilt.
This is an argument based on a ridiculously irrelevant technicality.
Sounds more like one of those bad old Southern Baptist commentaries. Supposedly Noah’s son Ham was “burned black” and cursed.
That seems highly speculative at best to me, having seen a great deal about how both curses and blessings, and especially the Lord, operates. The black peoples of the world have landed in disproportionate misfortune, I don’t doubt. What that says about their ultimate fates, I don’t know, and the upside of redemption in Christ remains wide open. Even “liberal” black people who get serious about God have told me, that though they don’t like Donald Trump, they choose to count on God rather than on the fickle favors of politicians.
“Seven years after his conviction, Tharpe’s lawyers interviewed juror Barney Gattie.”
How else do ethical issues like this get aired?
Remember that a “liberal” might be on your hanging jury someday.
So a couple of lawyers filed an affidavit years after the juror in question died.
Oh yea, nothing fishy about that at all.
L
That isn’t sufficient to dismiss the ethical question — retrospective is the key.
Now maybe prosecution should have skin in the game. He who is found to falsely accuse suffers the penalty. If we are going to go full bible why not this too. Ethics would certainly regain front and center.
“Yep. That’s the key. Seven year. Not even the same person they were.”
Why don’t you believe that Keith Tharpe is the same person he was seven years ago?
What’s to be aired. It’s been seven years. And a juror has the right to find you guilty or innocent based on the way you part your hair if they want.
Wasn’t that read by the person AFTER the trial, rather before? Could the guy’s personal opinion have changed after the trial,and could the trial have actually fed it?
Wait till a “liberal” is on your or your friend’s hanging jury. Then you will be turning those stones over for years.
“So a couple of lawyers filed an affidavit years after the juror in question died.”
That’s not what the article said.
Well, not if they’re guilty.
OJ got off for the same reason. I’ve testified at multiple trials involving AA defendants, where many of the AA jurors were openly hostile with their body language and actions while I was testifying. In all cases but one, an obviously guilty defendant walked.
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.