Jury Secrecy Doesnt Apply if Marred by Bias, Supreme Court Rules
Source: The New York Times
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that courts must make an exception to the usual rule that jury deliberations are secret when evidence emerges that those discussions were marred by racial or ethnic bias.
The nation must continue to make strides to overcome race-based discrimination, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. The progress that has already been made underlies the courts insistence that blatant racial prejudice is antithetical to the functioning of the jury system and must be confronted in egregious cases.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion.
In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the decision was a well intentioned but ill-considered intrusion into jurors privacy. This is a startling development, Justice Alito wrote, and although the court tries to limit the degree of intrusion, it is doubtful that there are principled grounds for preventing the expansion of todays holding.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-jury-bias-secrecy.html
still_one
(92,320 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Everytime someone gets whacked for a big number the losing side will hire private investigators on the jurors. Ugh.
bucolic_frolic
(43,249 posts)'Any reason you can't serve on a jury?'
'I'm a ranting wacko, your Honor.'
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)One time we were picking and a juror who did not want to be there said they were prejudiced against black people. My client was black.
So they were striken for cause. But the judge made his racist ass sit in the jury assembly room for the week it took for the trial.