Tell me how a prosecuting team could disqualify muslims during jury selection... umm... not a chance. The defense will continue cutting potential jurors until they find one.
BTW you did very well transcribing the sixth amendment... good for you.
I don't think so. "Peers" implies the same social class, maybe ethnicity, etc. Although legally there are of course no classes in the US. "Peers" in the sense that I took you to mean, that is other Muslims, would hardly be "impartial".
Tell me how a prosecuting team could disqualify muslims during jury selection... umm... not a chance. The defense will continue cutting potential jurors until they find one.
The defense doesn't have an infinite number of preemptory challenges available. I don't think the Muslim population of New York is so high that the prosecution would not be able to eliminate enough of them in the jury panel just using premptory challenges, which need not be justified, in such a way that there would not be another Muslim candidate "in line" ahead of non challenged non Muslims. Since there are many more non Muslims than Muslims in the jury pool, the defense would loose that sort of "eliminate to get to the juror I want" verses "elimination of jurors I don't want" contest.
The real problem would likely be that the Justice Department prosector wouldn not even try to preempt Muslim jurors, even if they were on the terrorist watch list, remembering that in “Audacity of Hope” Obama wrote: “Of In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. ... I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."