Race, lets make this serious! It is nearly 2013.

[O Really]

Good discussion here of "jury of peers." No rejection based on race is allowed.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/crimin ... peers.html

How is any of this a surprise in the Deep South?

Maybe, but the article was not applicable only to Georgia. Applies to California, too.

[Ulysses]

Good discussion here of "jury of peers." No rejection based on race is allowed.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/crimin ... peers.html

How is any of this a surprise in the Deep South?

Maybe, but the article was not applicable only to Georgia. Applies to California, too.

Well, except the article doesn't mention California. It does mention Kentucky, though.

[O Really]

Maybe, but the article was not applicable only to Georgia. Applies to California, too.

Well, except the article doesn't mention California. It does mention Kentucky, though.
[/quote]
Supreme Court decision. Doesn't matter that Kentucky was one of the parties.

[Vrede too]

Good discussion here of "jury of peers." No rejection based on race is allowed.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/crimin ... peers.html

How is any of this a surprise in the Deep South?

Maybe, but the article was not applicable only to Georgia. Applies to California, too.

Well, except the article doesn't mention California. It does mention Kentucky, though.

Supreme Court decision. Doesn't matter that Kentucky was one of the parties.

Zing. Useless is a hopeless California chauvinist, quite often foolishly.

[O Really]

Yeah, most people think "jury of peers" means you get a group like yourself. Originally it was to make sure the rich people weren't judged by the hoi polloi or the great unwashed.

[Ulysses]

Yeah, most people think "jury of peers" means you get a group like yourself. Originally it was to make sure the rich people weren't judged by the hoi polloi or the great unwashed.

There is that. But it was hundreds of years ago, no?

AFAIK, the USA has never recognized a nobility or peerage, not after the 1776 revolution.

However not being a legal eagle I will leave the rest to you.

[O Really]

Yeah, most people think "jury of peers" means you get a group like yourself. Originally it was to make sure the rich people weren't judged by the hoi polloi or the great unwashed.

There is that. But it was hundreds of years ago, no?

AFAIK, the USA has never recognized a nobility or peerage, not after the 1776 revolution.

However not being a legal eagle I will leave the rest to you.

Right, but that's still the origin of the concept. And although one side or the other can influence jury make-up, they can't do it directly based on race.

[Ulysses]

Yeah, most people think "jury of peers" means you get a group like yourself. Originally it was to make sure the rich people weren't judged by the hoi polloi or the great unwashed.

There is that. But it was hundreds of years ago, no?

AFAIK, the USA has never recognized a nobility or peerage, not after the 1776 revolution.

However not being a legal eagle I will leave the rest to you.

Right, but that's still the origin of the concept. And although one side or the other can influence jury make-up, they can't do it directly based on race.

Well, they can't admit it's because of race.

And, I imagine, there may have been some juror requirements that were unofficially race related, but the intent of which was to bar certain races from being on a jury.

Why does the term "literacy test" spring to mind?

[O Really]

You might want to review the rules of jury selection, including the number of jurors each side can refuse for no reason.

California Code of Civil Procedure 231 — Peremptory challenges; number; joint defendants; passing challenges. (“(a) In criminal cases, if the offense charged is punishable with death, or with imprisonment in the state prison for life, the defendant is entitled to 20 and the people to 20 peremptory challenges [during the California criminal jury trial]. Except as provided in subdivision (b), in a trial for any other offense, the defendant is entitled to 10 and the state to 10 peremptory challenges. When two or more defendants are jointly tried, their challenges shall be exercised jointly, but each defendant shall also be entitled to five additional challenges which may be exercised separately, and the people shall also be entitled to additional challenges equal to the number of all the additional separate challenges allowed the defendants. (b) If the offense charged is punishable with a maximum term of imprisonment of 90 days or less, the defendant is entitled to six and the state to six peremptory challenges. When two or more defendants are jointly tried, their challenges shall be exercised jointly, but each defendant shall also be entitled to four additional challenges which may be exercised separately, and the state shall also be entitled to additional challenges equal to the number of all the additional separate challenges allowed the defendants.”)

An attorney may not excuse prospective jurors based on their race, religion, ethnicity, etc. If he/she is suspected of doing so on a systematic basis, the opposing attorney will likely file what is known as a “Wheeler motion”. If granted, the entire jury panel will be dismissed, and a new panel will be ordered and questioned.

[Vrede too]

... An attorney may not excuse prospective jurors based on their race, religion, ethnicity, etc. If he/she is suspected of doing so on a systematic basis, the opposing attorney will likely file what is known as a “Wheeler motion”. If granted, the entire jury panel will be dismissed, and a new panel will be ordered and questioned.

Even the Ahmaud Arbery judge deplores the 11 Whites panel in a 71% White county, but says there's nothing he can do about it because the KKK defense lawyers created the appearance of being nonracial.

[O Really]

... An attorney may not excuse prospective jurors based on their race, religion, ethnicity, etc. If he/she is suspected of doing so on a systematic basis, the opposing attorney will likely file what is known as a “Wheeler motion”. If granted, the entire jury panel will be dismissed, and a new panel will be ordered and questioned.

Even the Ahmaud Arbery judge deplores the 11 Whites panel in a 71% White county, but says there's nothing he can do about it because the KKK defense lawyers created the appearance of being nonracial.

I didn't say it wasn't deplorable.

[Ulysses]

You might want to review the rules of jury selection, including the number of jurors each side can refuse for no reason.

California Code of Civil Procedure 231 — Peremptory challenges; number; joint defendants; passing challenges. (“(a) In criminal cases, if the offense charged is punishable with death, or with imprisonment in the state prison for life, the defendant is entitled to 20 and the people to 20 peremptory challenges [during the California criminal jury trial]. Except as provided in subdivision (b), in a trial for any other offense, the defendant is entitled to 10 and the state to 10 peremptory challenges. When two or more defendants are jointly tried, their challenges shall be exercised jointly, but each defendant shall also be entitled to five additional challenges which may be exercised separately, and the people shall also be entitled to additional challenges equal to the number of all the additional separate challenges allowed the defendants. (b) If the offense charged is punishable with a maximum term of imprisonment of 90 days or less, the defendant is entitled to six and the state to six peremptory challenges. When two or more defendants are jointly tried, their challenges shall be exercised jointly, but each defendant shall also be entitled to four additional challenges which may be exercised separately, and the state shall also be entitled to additional challenges equal to the number of all the additional separate challenges allowed the defendants.”)

An attorney may not excuse prospective jurors based on their race, religion, ethnicity, etc. If he/she is suspected of doing so on a systematic basis, the opposing attorney will likely file what is known as a “Wheeler motion”. If granted, the entire jury panel will be dismissed, and a new panel will be ordered and questioned.

Please forgive me if I decline to wade throough the legal mumbo jumbo.

I do have some experience with criminal court procedings though. Back in the late 1970's I was summoned to be on a jury nearby. Date rape case. I was surprised to be selected, and more suprised when I was elected jury foreman. The trial took four days; on the fifth day after about four hours we arrived at a verdict: guilty.

I found out later, after the trial was over, that the defendant had a prior conviction, but didn't know for what. I felt a bit sorry for him, but more sorry for the lady. There was one bit of evidence that was key, at least for me. A witness the lady went to after the rape to ask him to call the police, said that the lady's long nails had all been broken into the palm of her hand. When we discussed that in the deliberations, one of the jurors said, "Well, some people are into that". My response was succinct: if that was the case, then the guy should make damn sure the lady is OK with such force before attempting it. That seemed to settle the issue. Been called for jury duty several times since then, but never selected. No idea why, but it's possible they saw the prior jury duty and decided to pass, to avoid the "experienced juror" thing. IDK, it's all OK with me. Been there/done that.

[neoplacebo]

... An attorney may not excuse prospective jurors based on their race, religion, ethnicity, etc. If he/she is suspected of doing so on a systematic basis, the opposing attorney will likely file what is known as a “Wheeler motion”. If granted, the entire jury panel will be dismissed, and a new panel will be ordered and questioned.

Even the Ahmaud Arbery judge deplores the 11 Whites panel in a 71% White county, but says there's nothing he can do about it because the KKK defense lawyers created the appearance of being nonracial.

One of the defense lawyers in this case keeps objecting to the presence of "black pastors" attending the father and relatives of Arbery in the courtroom. He did it last week when Al Sharpton was there in the gallery and again the other day when Jesse Jackson was there. He considers it to be "affecting the jurors" and tried to conflate the presence of Sharpton and Jackson at the trial with the presence of uniformed police officers in the gallery at a hypothetical trial of a black man accused of killing a cop. The judge both times basically told him to stfu. The courtroom is a public place; there's no restrictions on who can attend a trial. You just can' t bring your gun.....unless you're a cop.

[Vrede too]

... An attorney may not excuse prospective jurors based on their race, religion, ethnicity, etc. If he/she is suspected of doing so on a systematic basis, the opposing attorney will likely file what is known as a “Wheeler motion”. If granted, the entire jury panel will be dismissed, and a new panel will be ordered and questioned.

Even the Ahmaud Arbery judge deplores the 11 Whites panel in a 71% White county, but says there's nothing he can do about it because the KKK defense lawyers created the appearance of being nonracial.

I didn't say it wasn't deplorable.

Ah, I thought that you were saying that reality matches the theory of colorblind fairness.

[O Really]

Ah, I thought that you were saying that reality matches the theory of colorblind fairness.

Nope.
But I do agree that it's not necessary to have a jury that looks like the defendant in order to give a fair trial. However, there are some instances in which the jury needs to understand the circumstances surrounding what the defendant did in order to judge the crime - and sometimes it would help to be of the same race. F'rinstance, a white person might not understand why a black person immediately ran from the police if he wasn't guilty. A black person might not understand why a white person picked up a weapon when he saw the black person pass by his car. The answer to both is racially based fear. But it's still better to have a mix of people in the jury.

[Vrede too]

Nope.
But I do agree that it's not necessary to have a jury that looks like the defendant in order to give a fair trial. However, there are some instances in which the jury needs to understand the circumstances surrounding what the defendant did in order to judge the crime - and sometimes it would help to be of the same race. F'rinstance, a white person might not understand why a black person immediately ran from the police if he wasn't guilty. A black person might not understand why a white person picked up a weapon when he saw the black person pass by his car. The answer to both is racially based fear. But it's still better to have a mix of people in the jury.

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I never seem to hear of a White accused-nonWhite victim jury that is less White than the jurisdiction.

[O Really]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I never seem to hear of a White accused-nonWhite victim jury that is less White than the jurisdiction.

Revised, below

[O Really]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I never seem to hear of a White accused-nonWhite victim jury that is less White than the jurisdiction.

I don't know, either, but if the jury pool is selected somewhat randomly, say 100 people, and using the national average of 13% black, out of a city population of, say, 200,000, you're not always, maybe not often going to get the actual 13 black people to choose from. Then if you apply the same chances of selection to everybody, you've got a lot bigger chance of getting mostly white-ish people. According to Pew Research survey, only about 15% of American adults receive a jury summons each year. Among those individuals, only 5% actually make it to a jury box. So a black guy has maybe a 13% chance of getting called, and if called, a 5% chance to serve.

I'm not saying lawyers don't try to shape race into their juries, I'm just saying that not having many black people may not in itself show bias.

[Vrede too]

... I'm not saying lawyers don't try to shape race into their juries, I'm just saying that not having many black people may not in itself show bias.

Fine, but a random lack of bias in high profile cases should lead to a darker than expected jury as often as it lead to a lighter than expected jury. I can't think of any instances where that's occurred.

[O Really]

Fine, but a random lack of bias in high profile cases should lead to a darker than expected jury as often as it lead to a lighter than expected jury. I can't think of any instances where that's occurred.

Not if you've got only 13% or so darker potential jurors to start with. (You don't have to do it, for real) Take 100 coins, 85 of them nickels; 15 pennies. Flip the coins for juror selection. You'll rarely get a majority pennies and only occasionally get as high as 25%.