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 ...
Knowing the racial views of a great many Chinese, I'd say she was as sincere as can be.
I think you're forgetting the fact that only the West even has the concept of racism being a moral wrong. For the rest of the world it's standard operating procedure.
You are assuming she lied, aren't you?
He was somewhat surprised that he was picked, so after the trial he asked the defense attorney why. the guy told him his client needed someone that would be less emotional and look at the evidence.
They found his client innocent of the abuse charges as the woman's story just didn't make any sense....too many discrepancies.
Don't take it personally. Lawyers on both sides prefer not to have people on the jury who can think and reason. They prefer people who can be swayed by emotional arguments irrespective of the evidence.
Or so I've heard...
I'm assuming she answered that way intentionally so she would be dismissed from service. She failed!
I stand with the judge.
“Or so I’ve heard... “
Seconded!
I haven’t seen all of them, but your tag line has to rate way up at the top. I love it!!!
So you would want a pissed off woman who does NOT want to be there on your jury? Interesting call.
I’ve served on two juries. The biggest pain about it was all the questioning to get to the final 12. It seems the only valid reason they should eliminate you would be that you are a relative or have some connection to one of the participants involved. Otherwise, if you’re an adult living in the jurisdiction, you should be considered a “peer” and whatever your personal thoughts are are irrelevent. JMHO
This is screwed up six ways, and really funny a half dozen.
It seems to me the judge is infringing on her 1st Amendment rights. She should be able to say what she wants without punishment from the government.
If I were her I’d lawyer up. Her case is far more important than the case she was being asked to serve on.
+1. Got me out several times. I was in a jury pool for a trial involving spouse abuse several years ago. When the lawyers asked if anyone had ever witnessed any abuse, I told them about a female who worked for me in the past.
Her BF hit her several times and she had a black eye when she showed up for work one Monday. I honestly told them my advice to her was to press charges. The defense lawyer had me released on the first round.
This wench is denying someone the right to a juror by her selfishness - a right she would be begging for sometime of her own - certainly good she’s shown her selfishness, as a citizen deserves better than her as a jurror, but she did a terrible thing, a very bad thing - we must depend on the decency and selflessness of our fellow citizens when we are in trouble and she’s let the country down and should be ashamed. The judge was right - he should have given her two weeks in jail - or as long as the trial lasted.
Maybe he could give her 90 days, remove her citizenship, or remove her right to trial by jury.
There you go. You nailed it. New law: no murder, no theft... and no saying anything Judge Garaufis finds offensive.
Wonder what legislature crafted, debated and passed THAT law?
The story's from a Brit news source, so she could be Pakistani or some other brand of muzz. Or she could be Indian.
It’s nice to have a Judge admit so boldy that Jury Service is a punishment, not a civil obligation.
oooppss, did i forget my /sarc ?
Sometimnes when I feel ornery, I like to remind my chinese co-workers that they decended from Africa and we all are one big family. . .
Here’s the story from a U.S. source, and she is still referred to as “Asian.”
I was once sued for an auto accident. Settled,out of court for less than $2,000, after third mistrial.
Afterwards when on jury duty and answering questions about that law suit, I have never served on a jury!
Answers:first mistrial,plaintiffs lawyers fault.. The ones that usually got me excused was the second and third trials. My lawyers.two separate,both died of heart attacks in court! Truthful answers, but lawyers were afraid to seat me.
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.