Supreme Court restores California rape conviction

[George Costanza]

What a moron.

You might want to brush up on the following from the TOS Rules here:

Derogatory statements directed at other members as well as direct or indirect personal attacks are permitted with the stipulation that you generally look like a fool when resorting to these tactics within a serious conversation on real issues. If you're comfortable playing the fool, feel free to do so.

Thank you very much.

 

[WillowTree]

What a moron.

You might want to brush up on the following from the TOS Rules here:

Derogatory statements directed at other members as well as direct or indirect personal attacks are permitted with the stipulation that you generally look like a fool when resorting to these tactics within a serious conversation on real issues. If you're comfortable playing the fool, feel free to do so.

Thank you very much.

Translation.. you can't answer even simple questions. you are in fact a moron.

 

[JBeukema]

And the SCOTUS said they were wrong. UNANIMOUSLY.

Scotus?

As in Dred Scott?

You'll have to use actual arguments; appealing to SCOTUS holds no weight in my book, given past rulings by SCOTUS

 

[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?

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.

Frankly, it sounds like the California Supreme Court's decision was proper. Who the hell am I (or you, or anyone) to say? I haven't read the opinion, but I assume that the California Supremes felt that the prosecutor's dismissal of two prospective black jurors (or however many were kicked) had sufficient non-racial justification to render the jury that was ultimately picked, properly selected. Looks like a difference of factual opinion between the 9tdh Circuit and the California Supremes.

Most of my discussion on this thread is directed toward the GENERAL issue of Batson/Wheeler challenges to the selection of juries, rather than the specifics of this case.

No, I don't think he should "walk free from raping a 72 year old." That is not my idea of justice. That is not to say that I would condone the conviction of someone who had raped a 72-year-old woman by a racially prejudiced jury, because I wouldn't - would you? Would that be your idea of justice? I would hope not.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Got a hypo for ya, Sweet Pea: Suppose a black man rapes a 72-year-old white woman. There is no question but that he did it. He confesses to the crime, his DNA is all over the place and he videotaped the entire thing and the police have the video. But he decides to go to trial.

The prosecutor violates Batson/Wheeler in the jury selection. He kicks off ten, prospective jurors, all of them black. When questioned as to why he did it, he tells the judge: "Because I want a conviction here, your honor, and I think I would have a much better chance with an all white jury than if there are blacks on there." Judge says: "Right on, brother, I hear ya." Judge rules no Batson/Wheeler violation. Trial proceeds in front of the 12 white jurors and the defendant is convicted following 15 minutes of deliberation.

Defendant appeals to the 9th Circuit, who overturns his conviction on the basis of obvious Batson/Wheeler violations in the selection of the jury.

On those facts, would you still be griping about the 9th Circuit Court? (Note: When a Batson/Wheeler violation is found on appeal, it does not mean the defendant goes free; it only means he gets a new trial.)

Well?

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

True freedom, liberty and justice is when you seek to protect the rights of those that you despise the most.
That doesn't fit into a right wing hack ideologues agenda.

 

[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?

True freedom, liberty and justice is when you seek to protect the rights of those that you despise the most.
That doesn't fit into a right wing hack ideologues agenda.

I agree with you - although I don't think I would classify Chanel as a right wing hack. She's right wing - but pretty nice and not a hack.

Now Willow Tree, on the other hand . . .

 

[Tank]

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

 

[Tank]

Got a hypo for ya, Sweet Pea: Suppose a black man rapes a 72-year-old white woman. There is no question but that he did it. He confesses to the crime, his DNA is all over the place and he videotaped the entire thing and the police have the video. But he decides to go to trial.

The prosecutor violates Batson/Wheeler in the jury selection. He kicks off ten, prospective jurors, all of them black. When questioned as to why he did it, he tells the judge: "Because I want a conviction here, your honor, and I think I would have a much better chance with an all white jury than if there are blacks on there." Judge says: "Right on, brother, I hear ya." Judge rules no Batson/Wheeler violation. Trial proceeds in front of the 12 white jurors and the defendant is convicted following 15 minutes of deliberation.

Defendant appeals to the 9th Circuit, who overturns his conviction on the basis of obvious Batson/Wheeler violations in the selection of the jury.

On those facts, would you still be griping about the 9th Circuit Court? (Note: When a Batson/Wheeler violation is found on appeal, it does not mean the defendant goes free; it only means he gets a new trial.)

Well?

Well at least you have a shot at a conviction, with a all black jury you would have no shot.

 

[George Costanza]

^^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.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

True freedom, liberty and justice is when you seek to protect the rights of those that you despise the most.
That doesn't fit into a right wing hack ideologues agenda.

I agree with you - although I don't think I would classify Chanel as a right wing hack. She's right wing - but pretty nice and not a hack.

Now Willow Tree, on the other hand . . .

True, I agree with her 95% of the time.

 

[George Costanza]

Got a hypo for ya, Sweet Pea: Suppose a black man rapes a 72-year-old white woman. There is no question but that he did it. He confesses to the crime, his DNA is all over the place and he videotaped the entire thing and the police have the video. But he decides to go to trial.

The prosecutor violates Batson/Wheeler in the jury selection. He kicks off ten, prospective jurors, all of them black. When questioned as to why he did it, he tells the judge: "Because I want a conviction here, your honor, and I think I would have a much better chance with an all white jury than if there are blacks on there." Judge says: "Right on, brother, I hear ya." Judge rules no Batson/Wheeler violation. Trial proceeds in front of the 12 white jurors and the defendant is convicted following 15 minutes of deliberation.

Defendant appeals to the 9th Circuit, who overturns his conviction on the basis of obvious Batson/Wheeler violations in the selection of the jury.

On those facts, would you still be griping about the 9th Circuit Court? (Note: When a Batson/Wheeler violation is found on appeal, it does not mean the defendant goes free; it only means he gets a new trial.)

Well?

Well at least you have a shot at a conviction, with a all black jury you would have no shot.

So you are saying that since an all black jury would be a sure acquittal, then it would be OK to intentionally keep any blacks from being on the jury so that it would be all white?

How about making sure that neither halppens?

By the way - Batson/Wheeler applies to both sides. If the defense kicked whites off the jury in an attempt to get an all black jury, that would be just as much of a violation as if the prosecutor did the same with potential black jurors.

 

[Tank]

Got a hypo for ya, Sweet Pea: Suppose a black man rapes a 72-year-old white woman. There is no question but that he did it. He confesses to the crime, his DNA is all over the place and he videotaped the entire thing and the police have the video. But he decides to go to trial.

The prosecutor violates Batson/Wheeler in the jury selection. He kicks off ten, prospective jurors, all of them black. When questioned as to why he did it, he tells the judge: "Because I want a conviction here, your honor, and I think I would have a much better chance with an all white jury than if there are blacks on there." Judge says: "Right on, brother, I hear ya." Judge rules no Batson/Wheeler violation. Trial proceeds in front of the 12 white jurors and the defendant is convicted following 15 minutes of deliberation.

Defendant appeals to the 9th Circuit, who overturns his conviction on the basis of obvious Batson/Wheeler violations in the selection of the jury.

On those facts, would you still be griping about the 9th Circuit Court? (Note: When a Batson/Wheeler violation is found on appeal, it does not mean the defendant goes free; it only means he gets a new trial.)

Well?

Well at least you have a shot at a conviction, with a all black jury you would have no shot.

So you are saying that since an all black jury would be a sure acquittal.

 

[Gadawg73]

Got a hypo for ya, Sweet Pea: Suppose a black man rapes a 72-year-old white woman. There is no question but that he did it. He confesses to the crime, his DNA is all over the place and he videotaped the entire thing and the police have the video. But he decides to go to trial.

The prosecutor violates Batson/Wheeler in the jury selection. He kicks off ten, prospective jurors, all of them black. When questioned as to why he did it, he tells the judge: "Because I want a conviction here, your honor, and I think I would have a much better chance with an all white jury than if there are blacks on there." Judge says: "Right on, brother, I hear ya." Judge rules no Batson/Wheeler violation. Trial proceeds in front of the 12 white jurors and the defendant is convicted following 15 minutes of deliberation.

Defendant appeals to the 9th Circuit, who overturns his conviction on the basis of obvious Batson/Wheeler violations in the selection of the jury.

On those facts, would you still be griping about the 9th Circuit Court? (Note: When a Batson/Wheeler violation is found on appeal, it does not mean the defendant goes free; it only means he gets a new trial.)

Well?

Well at least you have a shot at a conviction, with a all black jury you would have no shot.

So you are saying that since an all black jury would be a sure acquittal, then it would be OK to intentionally keep any blacks from being on the jury so that it would be all white?

How about making sure that neither halppens?

By the way - Batson/Wheeler applies to both sides. If the defense kicked whites off the jury in an attempt to get an all black jury, that would be just as much of a violation as if the prosecutor did the same with potential black jurors.

Criminal defense lawyers would rather have an all white well educated white collar upper class croissant and tea crowd jury than a working class black jury any day of the week.
Working class blacks convict their own more than any white liberal would.
Myths and stereotypes are rampant. My first gig was with a criminal defense law firm.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Got a hypo for ya, Sweet Pea: Suppose a black man rapes a 72-year-old white woman. There is no question but that he did it. He confesses to the crime, his DNA is all over the place and he videotaped the entire thing and the police have the video. But he decides to go to trial.

The prosecutor violates Batson/Wheeler in the jury selection. He kicks off ten, prospective jurors, all of them black. When questioned as to why he did it, he tells the judge: "Because I want a conviction here, your honor, and I think I would have a much better chance with an all white jury than if there are blacks on there." Judge says: "Right on, brother, I hear ya." Judge rules no Batson/Wheeler violation. Trial proceeds in front of the 12 white jurors and the defendant is convicted following 15 minutes of deliberation.

Defendant appeals to the 9th Circuit, who overturns his conviction on the basis of obvious Batson/Wheeler violations in the selection of the jury.

On those facts, would you still be griping about the 9th Circuit Court? (Note: When a Batson/Wheeler violation is found on appeal, it does not mean the defendant goes free; it only means he gets a new trial.)

Well?

So you are saying only whites can judge whites, and only blacks can judge blacks.. that's pretty damn telling innit?

 

[WillowTree]

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?

True freedom, liberty and justice is when you seek to protect the rights of those that you despise the most.
That doesn't fit into a right wing hack ideologues agenda.

I agree with you - although I don't think I would classify Chanel as a right wing hack. She's right wing - but pretty nice and not a hack.

Now Willow Tree, on the other hand . . .

you can call me anything you want to, my sympathy lies with the victims and their families.

 

[George Costanza]

Supreme Court restores California rape conviction - latimes.com

Thank goodness. That poor woman.

More CA lunacy.

Got a hypo for ya, Sweet Pea: Suppose a black man rapes a 72-year-old white woman. There is no question but that he did it. He confesses to the crime, his DNA is all over the place and he videotaped the entire thing and the police have the video. But he decides to go to trial.

The prosecutor violates Batson/Wheeler in the jury selection. He kicks off ten, prospective jurors, all of them black. When questioned as to why he did it, he tells the judge: "Because I want a conviction here, your honor, and I think I would have a much better chance with an all white jury than if there are blacks on there." Judge says: "Right on, brother, I hear ya." Judge rules no Batson/Wheeler violation. Trial proceeds in front of the 12 white jurors and the defendant is convicted following 15 minutes of deliberation.

Defendant appeals to the 9th Circuit, who overturns his conviction on the basis of obvious Batson/Wheeler violations in the selection of the jury.

On those facts, would you still be griping about the 9th Circuit Court? (Note: When a Batson/Wheeler violation is found on appeal, it does not mean the defendant goes free; it only means he gets a new trial.)

Well?

So you are saying only whites can judge whites, and only blacks can judge blacks.. that's pretty damn telling innit?

You really have trouble with examples meant to illustrate a point, don't you. Now listen carefully.

I am not saying what you claim here. Nothing of the sort. In fact, I am not saying anything. The cases of Wheeler and Batson are the ones doing the talking. They say, that if either side kicks potential jurors for racial reasons in an attempt to shape a jury they feel will benefit their side or hurt the other side for racial reasons, it is improper, and the trial has to start all over again with a new jury panel.

Ideally, a jury that has a minority defendant, will be composed of both races - or even more races than two. Ideally, a jury should represent the same proportion of races that exist in the community, i.e., if the community is 10% black, then that same percentage should be on the jury, if another 10% is Asian, then that same percentage of Asians should be on the jury, and so on.

You know, if you spent less time trying to insult others, less time intentionally misinterpreting what people are saying and more time just addressing arguments in a logical fashion, you would have a lot more credibility on this board. As it is now, well . . .

Too many people here seem to think that being an Internet tough guy means they win arguments. Wrong.

 

[George Costanza]

True freedom, liberty and justice is when you seek to protect the rights of those that you despise the most.
That doesn't fit into a right wing hack ideologues agenda.

I agree with you - although I don't think I would classify Chanel as a right wing hack. She's right wing - but pretty nice and not a hack.

Now Willow Tree, on the other hand . . .

you can call me anything you want to, my sympathy lies with the victims and their families.

As does mine.

 

[George Costanza]

Well at least you have a shot at a conviction, with a all black jury you would have no shot.

So you are saying that since an all black jury would be a sure acquittal, then it would be OK to intentionally keep any blacks from being on the jury so that it would be all white?

How about making sure that neither halppens?

By the way - Batson/Wheeler applies to both sides. If the defense kicked whites off the jury in an attempt to get an all black jury, that would be just as much of a violation as if the prosecutor did the same with potential black jurors.

Criminal defense lawyers would rather have an all white well educated white collar upper class croissant and tea crowd jury than a working class black jury any day of the week.
Working class blacks convict their own more than any white liberal would.
Myths and stereotypes are rampant. My first gig was with a criminal defense law firm.

Actually, it depends largely on the facts of the case.

The problem with the white jury you describe above is that they are generally reluctant to believe that a cop would ever lie. Many times, police credibility is a major issue in the case. As such, a well educated, white jury is not always the best kind in a case of that nature.

On the other hand, blue collar working people, many of whom have been on the wrong end of a night stick themselves and/or have experienced instances of police lying, make much better jurors in a cop credibility case.

Don't forget - very few well educated white people have ever been mistreated by a cop. The only exposure most of them have to the police is getting a traffic ticket and, since they are polite, well educated people, they don't give the cop a hard time and he is always very courteous to them. Accordingly, they have no reason to feel suspicious of the police.

But all of this is for another thread.

 

[George Costanza]

Well at least you have a shot at a conviction, with a all black jury you would have no shot.

So you are saying that since an all black jury would be a sure acquittal.

Well played - I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up.

As an aside, before the start of every trial, the judge will talk to the jury and explain the purpose of voir dire, which is to select a fair and impartial jury, the judge will say. Of course nothing could be farther from the truth. The purpose of jury selection is for each side to try to get the most biased jury it can, for its side of the case.