How A Ruling On Gay Jurors Could Have A Huge Effect On The Gay Rights Movement

[Tx4obama]

How A Ruling On Gay Jurors Could Have A Huge Effect On The Gay Rights Movement

In the next few weeks, AbbVie, a pharmaceutical company that produces an important AIDS drug, will make a decision that could have a far-reaching effect on gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, and not just those with HIV.

If the company appeals a recent court ruling and wins, it will come as a blow to those who hope to see states around the country topple the remaining barriers both to same-sex marriage and to laws that protect gay people from discrimination.

The case did not initially concern gay rights at all, but was instead a fight between two pharmaceutical giants. In 2007, a drug company called SmithKline Beecham Corp. sued a rival drug producer, Abbott Laboratories. Abbott, which later spun off its drug research activities into a new company, AbbVie, had quintupled the price of its popular AIDS drug, a move that ended up hurting SmithKline's bottom line.

Predictably, Abbott's decision to raise the price of its drug sparked anger and protest from AIDS activists. Still, the case may have never come to the attention of the broader gay rights community if not for an attempt by Abbott to tilt the jury's makeup in its favor: In 2011, a lawyer for Abbott dismissed a potential juror who had revealed he was gay and had friends with HIV. SmithKline argued that the removal was discriminatory, and last week the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

In the unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel called the exclusion of gay jurors unconstitutional. The reach of this ruling goes beyond gay jurors, however, because it touches on one of the most significant legal questions concerning gay rights today: Should laws related to sexual orientation be subject to "heightened scrutiny"?

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/01/gay-juror_n_4705259.html

[pinto]

1. Something's missing here. I don't see how a higher priced medication from one company could hurt

the lower priced medication producer's bottom line. Would seem that, all things being equal, medical prescribers and pharmacists would recommend the lower priced drug. Reinforcing that company's bottom line.

My guess is that both are likely under patent and different medications. Could be that the newer(?), higher priced drug was recommended as a better treatment choice. The AIDS advocate communities objected to price gouging, not discrimination, per se. I wish the article mentioned both meds by name, would clarify the situation. Both Abbott and SmithKline are major marketers of HIV medications.

The other issue is the jury selection call. All parties have a right to challenge jury selection. I think the judges made the right call. A gay juror who has a friend with HIV cannot be assumed to have a lack of objectivity based solely on those two points. Abbot tried and lost the call. And the Circuit Court agreed with the initial judicial panel's determination.

[dipsydoodle]

3. I couldn't see that either.

I read it about 5 times and then gave up.

[Incitatus]

6. Here's a little more info:

The central question in this appeal arises out of a lawsuit brought by SmithKline Beecham (GSK) against Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) that contains antitrust, contract, and unfair trade practice (UTPA) claims. The dispute relates to a licensing agreement and the pricing of HIV medications, the latter being a subject of considerable controversy in the gay community. GSK's claims center on the contention that Abbott violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the antitrust laws, and North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act by first licensing to GSK the authority to market an Abbott HIV drug in conjunction with one of its own and then increasing the price of the Abbott drug fourfold, so as to drive business to Abbott's own, combination drug.


http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020140121143

[pinto]

7. Ah, thanks for the info. Many HIV med regimes these days are combos from different companies.

And some meds are single pill combos from different companies, i.e one pill could be a combo of 3 different medications from different drug manufacturers. If the latter case, I could see that Abbott's price gouging in a co-mingled drug component would hurt SmithKline's bottom line.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Do I take it that lawyers in the US need to give reasons when they select a jury ?

They don't in the UK.

[NYC Liberal]

4. They need a reason to challenge a juror.

Both sides also get a limited number of "preemptory strikes", which let them challenge a juror without needing a reason.

[pinto]

5. They get some set number of dismissals on jury selection subject to appeal and review.

iirc

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I don't think an English lawyer would be able to object to a juror without reason

Peremptory challenges

Peremptory challenges, or challenges without cause, allowing the defence to prevent a certain number of jurors from serving without giving any reason, were formerly allowed in English courts and are still allowed in some other jurisdictions. At one time, the defence was allowed 25 such challenges, but this was reduced to 12 in 1925, to 7 in 1948 and 3 in 1977 before total abolition in 1988.[27][28]
Stand by

The prosecution and judge, but not the defence, have the right to prevent a juror from serving by asking them to "stand by". However, prosecutors are instructed to invoke this right sparingly as the quality of the jury is primarily the responsibility of the court officer. The right should only be invoked in cases of national security or terrorism, in which case the personal authority of the Attorney General is needed, or where a juror is "obviously unsuitable", and the defence agree.[29][30]
Challenge for cause

Either prosecution or defence can "challenge for cause" as many individual jurors as they wish on the grounds that the juror is:[31]

Ineligible or disqualified; or
Reasonably suspected of being biased.

These are the modern versions of the ancient challenges of propter honoris respectum, propter defectum and propter affectum.[31] Challenges have been successful where a juror was employed by or related to a party, had enjoyed entertainment at a party's home, or where they had already expressed an opinion on the case or shown hostility to the accused.[31] During the 1969 trial of the notorious gangsters, the Kray twins, the trial judge was prepared to exclude any juror who had read some of the current lurid newspaper reporting.[32] However, in a trial arising from the conduct of a picket in the bitterly contested UK miners' strike (1984–1985), a miner who had worked throughout the conflict was held to be fit to serve.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_England_and_Wales#Empanelling_and_challenging_jurors

I'd hope that a judge wouldn't count "do you know anyone with HIV" as "a reasonable suspicion of bias".

[dipsydoodle]

12. I only mentioned that

because when I was the jury of a fraud trial back in the '70s the defense councel later mentioned that is he'd noticed that one of the guys on the jury had a copy of the Guardian sticking out of the pocket of his Barbour coat he'd have rejected him.

Much to my amusement the prosecuting councel , at a later much date , was done for kerb crawling in the Queensway area.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Ah; that would have been before the 1988 act

I did jury duty in 2012; for a case in which victim and defendant were both police officers, they asked us if we knew anyone in that police force (the neighbouring county), but for 2 other cases, all they did was read out a list of expected witnesses and ask if we knew any of them. There was no "are you happy with these jurors" question to either barrister.

[dsc]

8. the irony is that if the lawyer hadn't said it was because the juror was gay

this case would likely have gone nowhere as cases where blacks have been clearly removed for juries have gone no where when it wasn't directly admitted. I hope this case stands, it is why the Nevada AG refused to defend and also why the VA AG refused to defend.

[countryjake]

9. K&R!

[msanthrope]

10. Link to decision...the district court judge ought to be ashamed of herself. Abbot's attorneys ought

to be ashamed of themselves.

But reading the extention of Batson by the 9th is a thing of beauty..

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/012114glaxoabbottruling.pdf