Jury of Your Peers ?

[bugout]

I need to know; if you live in a county and the jury pool has no african americans called for jury duty but the defendant is black, is it against the defendants constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury?

IOW is this an appeallet issue? Does anyone know?

Everyone in the case is white, except for the defendant. Everyone on the jury is white. TIA

Bug

[annalyzer]

jury of one's peers n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+of+one's+peers

[annalyzer]

Bugout, what county/state are you referring to?

[annalyzer]

Equals; those who are an individual's equals in rank and station.

The traditional phrase trial by a jury of his peers means trial by a jury of citizens.

http://www.answers.com/topic/peer

[kellygreen]

When I hear reference to a jury of one's peers, I harken back to a little ditty that goes something like this: We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL MEN are created equal....

[Jay]

I need to know; if you live in a county and the jury pool has no african americans called for jury duty but the defendant is black, is it against the defendants constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury?

IOW is this an appeallet issue? Does anyone know?

Everyone in the case is white, except for the defendant. Everyone on the jury is white. TIA

Bug

It is only UNconstituional to exclude a jury candidate because of race, simply because the pool has no minorities or blacks is not a ground to appeal. NOW, if the jury pool had say 40 blacks and 15 whites and all 12, or whatever # the law states must be on a jury, were all white, this could be an issue I suppose.

[bugout]

Thank you so much everyone. I guess Batson vs Kentucky was different, but there was a trial near me where everyone was white, and only the defendants were black and I wondered: Well, only white people showed up, or the few black AAs that did were excused from the pool. I guess I wondered, is it fair, I kind of agree with all men created equal, which we KNOW is not true and took years to even begin to come true for some.

This was a WV case, and the judge chews on the bench. He spits into a tiny cup the whole day long. :eek:

[annalyzer]

This was a WV case, and the judge chews on the bench. He spits into a tiny cup the whole day long. :eek:


Ya mean he aint' got no spittoon?

lol I'm from WV and live here. What case are you referring to?

[bugout]

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/batson-v-kentucky

[Details]

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/batson-v-kentuckyYeah, that's a different case. Jurors were dismissed because of their race - as opposed to there simply being no jurors in the pool of a particular race. Not even with preemptory challenges can the defense or prosecutor dismiss jurors due to their race.

But - if there are no black jurors in the pool, none choose to show up, or those who are there are dismissed for other valid reasons (like that they say they cannot afford time off for the trial, they have knowledge of the case, a bias against defendant or witnesses that may be called) - it's not bias.

And we can't assume anything about the judge just because he chews, as much as it fits some stereotypes.

Was the case decided fairly - whether that verdict was guilty or innocent? Did you know or were you pretty sure if the defendant actually did it, and did the verdict match the facts?