Saturday, January 16, 2010
A right to a “Jury of their peers”!
One of the cornerstones of the American judicial system is the defendants right to a “jury of their peers”. We have seen a lot of trials in which African Americans who were being tried by all white juries appeal conviction because of this.
There have been many cases to cite where this has happened for instance OJ Simpson’s trial was heard by an all white jury. You can go back to the 1931 court case of the “Scottsboro Boys” in Scottsboro, Alabama. So the legal question is:
“Were an African-American murder defendant's Sixth Amendment rights violated by an all-white jury panel in a case where a U.S. Court of Appeals determined that a state Supreme Court improperly failed to find systematic under representation? The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer this question, reviewing a 6th Circuit decision.”
The ACLU, which is on the forefront for terrorist rights, said this:
The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded two decisions by the Supreme Court that will make it more difficult for prosecutors to engage in racial discrimination during jury selection.
In one case, the Court overturned the 1986 conviction of a Black Death row inmate, finding that Texas prosecutors wrongly stacked his jury with whites; in the other, the Court requires prosecutors to provide a race-neutral explanation for juror challenges if there is reason to believe that race discrimination is at play.
With case law firmly entrenched, can the attorneys for the defendants successfully argue that unless the jury has a healthy representation of Islamic fundamentalists, they cannot get receive a fair trial?
Will a “racial bias” ruling extend to “religious bias”? Will the defendants swear to tell the truth on a holy Koran or a holy bible? Finally, can the defense successfully exclude Jews from the jury given the religious “bias” question, or even “Christians”?
Can anyone who is not an attorney see the multitudes of problems in trying these murderous monsters in a civilian, American court?
Set aside for a moment that there were no standard “crime scene” forensics in place at the time of their apprehension and the fact that a number of the defendants were subjected to “enhanced interrogation” the whole farce is rife with legal snarls that are all stacked against the prosecution regardless of Eric Holders bold statement that we will find them guilty. Even his statement is grounds for dismissal as a “prejudgment of guilt”.