Supreme Court restores California rape conviction

[chanel]

The Supreme Court unanimously restored the conviction of a California rapist Monday and rebuked the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for handing down an opinion it called "inexplicable" and "dismissive" in tone.

The decision marked the 10th time since November that the justices had reversed rulings of the 9th Circuit Court; nearly all of the decisions were unanimous.

The justices have repeatedly faulted the San Francisco-based appeals court for intervening in state criminal cases and second-guessing rulings of the California state courts. Their opinion reflected an unusual tone of irritation.

In January, the high court faulted the 9th Circuit Court for ordering several state prisoners to be paroled, saying such decisions are left to state officials, not federal judges. State prisoners have no constitutional right to be paroled, the justices said.

The latest case arose after a jury convicted Steven Jackson of raping and robbing a 72-year-old woman in her apartment. Because of an earlier conviction for a sexual assault, he was sentenced to life in prison.

The legal dispute concerned the selection of jurors. Only one African American was on the jury.

Supreme Court restores California rape conviction - latimes.com

Thank goodness. That poor woman.

More CA lunacy.

 

[JBeukema]

There's a reason they call it the Ninth Circus

 

[xsited1]

More white guilt. White Libtards have it.

 

[Anachronism]

Things like this run rampant in our system, yet people continue to wonder why it is that I prefer the idea of Vigilantee Justice to the Legal System we currently have in place.

 

[William Joyce]

The Supreme Court obviously overlooked that part of the Constitution that says, "and when a black male is on trial for brutally raping an elderly white woman, he should have a jury of 12 black male rapists so it's fair and stuff."

Whatever happened to originalism, people?

 

[Ropey]

^^You are truly warped.^^

 

[jillian]

^^You are truly warped.^^

yeah, but at least he's honest about being a racist loser.... unlike the 'who me?' racists that infest this board.

 

[Ropey]

^^You are truly warped.^^

yeah, but at least he's honest about being a racist loser.... unlike the 'who me?' racists that infest this board.

Yeah.

"Some of my best friends have been..."

Have been? What a tool!

At least their bar is not set very high.

 

[JBeukema]

^^You are truly warped.^^

yeah, but at least he's honest about being a racist loser.... unlike the 'who me?' racists that infest this board.

says the Zionist...

Actually, wanting to live within your own kind IS racist

 

[jillian]

^^You are truly warped.^^

yeah, but at least he's honest about being a racist loser.... unlike the 'who me?' racists that infest this board.

Yeah.

"Some of my best friends have been..."

Have been? What a tool!

At least their bar is not set very high.

my favorites are the people who say its racist to call out the racists...

because we're supposed to let them spew without comment donchaknow...

 

[William Joyce]

jillian and ropey:

How's that "Equal Rights for Arabs" movement in Israel going?

 

[Ropey]

jillian and ropey:

How's that "Equal Rights for Arabs" movement in Israel going?

Better than the equal rights for Jews in any Muslim country.

And far better than your wish for the Blacks in America.

^^You are truly warped.^^

yeah, but at least he's honest about being a racist loser.... unlike the 'who me?' racists that infest this board.

says the Zionist...

Actually, wanting to live within your own kind IS racist

Says the druggist? Stay on the medi boy.

 

[George Costanza]

More white guilt. White Libtards have it.

How do you get "white guilt" out of this situation?

 

[George Costanza]

Things like this run rampant in our system, yet people continue to wonder why it is that I prefer the idea of Vigilantee Justice to the Legal System we currently have in place.

Things like what - a jury with only one black person on it, convicting a black man of rape?

Do you approve of a system that allows a prosecutor to systematically exclude black jurors from the jury in the hope that an all-white jury will be more likely to convict a black man than would a jury that had at least a representative number of black people on it? That seem OK to you?

If so, then I assume you also would have no objection to the reverse scenario where a white man is charged with a serious crime against a black person, and the prosecutor systematically kept all potential white jurors off the jury so that the defendant went on trial in front of an all black jury. That one OK as well?

Well, NEITHER of these scenarios is OK with the criminal justice system. See People v. Wheeler, 22 C3 258 (1978) and Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986). Wheeler is a California Supreme Court case. Batson was decided by the U.S. Supremes.

 

[George Costanza]

Batson/Wheeler requires the trial judge to thorougly question the attorney (prosecution or defense) who is excluding jurors for apparent, racial reasons. If the attorney cannot adequately justify the exclusions, they have to start all over with a fresh panel.

Many times, the excluding attorney can justify the exclusions on some ground(s) other than racial. The prosecutor kicks a black juror, not because he is black, but because he is a social worker, and the prosecutor does not want a social worker (regardless of race) on this particular jury.

In the case cited in the OP, the California Supremes felt that the exclusion of two black jurors was for reasons sufficiently apart from racial reasons. Apparently, the 9th Circuit Court has disagreed.

 

[chanel]

And the SCOTUS said they were wrong. UNANIMOUSLY.

 

[xsited1]

The Supreme Court obviously overlooked that part of the Constitution that says, "and when a black male is on trial for brutally raping an elderly white woman, he should have a jury of 12 black male rapists so it's fair and stuff."

Whatever happened to originalism, people?

As sick and twisted as this post is, there is some truth to it. My goodness, we have a long way to go. I'm predicting by the year 6138 human beings will be beyond all this race stuff. Any takers?

 

[George Costanza]

And the SCOTUS said they were wrong. UNANIMOUSLY.

OK - and what's your point? The 9th Circuit sucks?

Why are you cons so down on one of the few remaining courts in this entire nation, that stands up for the rights of those accused of crime? The Right has stacked just about every court in this land, both state and federal, with conservative justices, bent on convicting and sentencing with little or no regard for the rights of the defendant.

Not enough, eh?

 

[WillowTree]

And the SCOTUS said they were wrong. UNANIMOUSLY.

OK - and what's your point? The 9th Circuit sucks?

Why are you cons so down on one of the few remaining courts in this entire nation, that stands up for the rights of those accused of crime? The Right has stacked just about every court in this land, both state and federal, with conservative justices, bent on convicting and sentencing with little or no regard for the rights of the defendant.

Not enough, eh?

How many times was this man given a trial, an appeal, How many courts will it take for you to say he got justice? And since his appeal was a race based arguement then it just naturally follows that race would become an issue. What? you think he should walk free from raping and robbing a 72 year old? That your idea of justice? So you want the felon to have a liberal judge, a liberal jury and he should go free, that make ya happy? What a moron.

 

[WillowTree]

What about the rights of the victim? How come no one on the left ever screams about the rights of the victim? Strange innit?