Supreme Court restores California rape conviction

[Tank]

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.

Do you want the best juror, or just want to fill a quota?

And why do you think a minority defendant should have a different jury the a white defendant?

Can you see how racist your liberal ass is?

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Do you want the best juror, or just want to fill a quota?

And why do you think a minority defendant should have a different jury the a white defendant?

Can you see how racist your liberal ass is?

What about "ideally" don't you understand? Jury of ones' peers is the standard.
Have you ever witnessed voir dire?

 

[WillowTree]

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.

A. How do you prove it's for racial reasons. What criteria must be met?


B. I didn't intentinally misrepresent anything. I asked a question.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Do you want the best juror, or just want to fill a quota?

And why do you think a minority defendant should have a different jury the a white defendant?

Can you see how racist your liberal ass is?

What about "ideally" don't you understand? Jury of ones' peers is the standard.Have you ever witnessed voir dire?

Then I want an all white, middle aged, middle classed jury. Does anything else get me a mistrial?

 

[R.D.]

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.

Do you want the best juror, or just want to fill a quota?

And why do you think a minority defendant should have a different jury the a white defendant?

Can you see how racist your liberal ass is?

What about "ideally" don't you understand? Jury of ones' peers is the standard.
Have you ever witnessed voir dire?

So are you gonna pretend void dire didn't happen?

BTW, please don't take this as an invitation for you to start bragging on your lawyer self again

 

[WillowTree]

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.

So, what you've just said is that the judical system is supposed to work as the Judge explains it, but the lawyers make it absolutely "far from the truth." The lawyers go for biased jurors rather than "fair and impartial" Good summation of why Americans don't trust getting a square deal.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

So, what you've just said is that the judical system is supposed to work as the Judge explains it, but the lawyers make it absolutely "far from the truth." The lawyers go for biased jurors rather than "fair and impartial" Good summation of why Americans don't trust getting a square deal.

If you were presenting YOUR facts before a jury in your case, wouldn't you want a jury that was biased towards YOUR version of the case?
"He must be guilty. Why else would they have arrested him and put him on trial" is the biggest bias of all.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

So, what you've just said is that the judical system is supposed to work as the Judge explains it, but the lawyers make it absolutely "far from the truth." The lawyers go for biased jurors rather than "fair and impartial" Good summation of why Americans don't trust getting a square deal.

If you were presenting YOUR facts before a jury in your case, wouldn't you want a jury that was biased towards YOUR version of the case?
"He must be guilty. Why else would they have arrested him and put him on trial" is the biggest bias of all.

then why be so dishonest and let the judge sit up there and lie through his teeth about "fair and impartial" if the truth is "biased"??? Oh! and btw, take that blindfold off lady justice, that's a lie too.

 

[GHook93]

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.

Maybe for Jews and Christians in Arab countries or Arabs in Persia, but come on no country treats their minorities better than America, Israel isn't even close to us!

 

[GHook93]

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

Not true, they scream about the rights of the victim, when the victim is them, a family member or a minority victim of white prepetrators. When the victim is white, esp harmed by minorities, the prepetrator's rights count more.

 

[Gadawg73]

So, what you've just said is that the judical system is supposed to work as the Judge explains it, but the lawyers make it absolutely "far from the truth." The lawyers go for biased jurors rather than "fair and impartial" Good summation of why Americans don't trust getting a square deal.

If you were presenting YOUR facts before a jury in your case, wouldn't you want a jury that was biased towards YOUR version of the case?
"He must be guilty. Why else would they have arrested him and put him on trial" is the biggest bias of all.

then why be so dishonest and let the judge sit up there and lie through his teeth about "fair and impartial" if the truth is "biased"??? Oh! and btw, take that blindfold off lady justice, that's a lie too.

You watch too much TV.

 

[George Costanza]

I didn't say I necessarily endorsed the fact that biased juries are the goal of each side in a criminal case. So WT should not get her panties in a wad.

As I say so often - I don't judge, I just report.

 

[WillowTree]

If you were presenting YOUR facts before a jury in your case, wouldn't you want a jury that was biased towards YOUR version of the case?
"He must be guilty. Why else would they have arrested him and put him on trial" is the biggest bias of all.

then why be so dishonest and let the judge sit up there and lie through his teeth about "fair and impartial" if the truth is "biased"??? Oh! and btw, take that blindfold off lady justice, that's a lie too.

You watch too much TV.

Has nothing to do with TV. My questions are based soley on what is written in this thread. Now. can you answer the question?

 

[WillowTree]

I didn't say I necessarily endorsed the fact that biased juries are the goal of each side in a criminal case. So WT should not get her panties in a wad.

As I say so often - I don't judge, I just report.

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.

.

 

[Gadawg73]

then why be so dishonest and let the judge sit up there and lie through his teeth about "fair and impartial" if the truth is "biased"??? Oh! and btw, take that blindfold off lady justice, that's a lie too.

You watch too much TV.

Has nothing to do with TV. My questions are based soley on what is written in this thread. Now. can you answer the question?

State Legislatures write what a Judge can say and not say.
I R not one.
Our court system does not work like you want:

 

[WillowTree]

You watch too much TV.

Has nothing to do with TV. My questions are based soley on what is written in this thread. Now. can you answer the question?

State Legislatures write what a Judge can say and not say.
I R not one.
Our court system does not work like you want:

Obviously, it doesn't. It works for the manipulators.