EatMoreSalmon said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Oldbear83 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
cowboycwr said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
historian said:
I saw a TV broadcast with this info. I cannot say where it was from but it wasn't fringe.
Regardless it is irrelevant, and we should stop pretending it matters.
I agree. But I wish some media would focus on it to put the "all white jury" bs to rest that the left is pushing.
I get the strong feeling that not having any blacks on the jury wasn't from a lack of trying. Judging from the sentiment of many blacks after the verdict, it was probably difficult to find potential black jurors who didn't clearly have it in mind to let Karmelo Anthony off the hook no matter what.
I was on jury duty in May, so I have some fresh memories of Voie Dire. Chief to this situation, I doubt the judge would have allowed anyone on the jury who made up their mind ahead of the trial, and in our panel there were a lot of people who made up their mind and told the lawyers so when asked.
I suspect given the emotional character of this trial, the judge was a lot less interested in having a certain color on the jury, and a lot more interested in jurors who would decide on the evidence.
That's his lawyers job. When the defense rested on Monday after 5 or so days of the prosecution case, I knew he was cooked.
His lawyer was supposed to fight for the jury and present a strong defense. His family picked this guy.
I have serious doubts that all the blacks in the jury pool were educators. Seems statistically unlikely.
First of all, a typical jury pool in Texas consist of around 50 people. For a high profile case, such as this, it would be at least that, if not more, probably 60 to 80. There were more than 3 blacks in the pool.
For voir dire, each person is assigned a number - 1 through 60. During voir dire, each side tries to establish cause (or break cause) for those people seated with the lower numbers.
The pool is excused and the lawyers argue for the Court to remove members of the pool that are ineligible to serve for cause.
Cause can mean really anything but it is typical someone that cannot set their biases aside and determine the case based on the facts and the law and instructions given by the judge. Certainly some black members were removed during this stage for cause.
Once these members are removed, each side is given their strikes. I do not know how many each side had but it was certainly more than 3, probably 6 . A strike can be used for any reason other than race, ethnicity, sex, or religion.
After the strikes remove these additional members - the jury is sat starting with the lowest assigned number until reaching 12.
What you are questing is the prosecution striking 3 black members that had low assigned numbers. The stated reason is that these people were educators - a perfectly legal and logical reason to strike them.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.