Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

by Guest Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:04 pm

A Juror won a new trial for two African-American defendants when he stood up in front of a Nashville courtroom and called out the fact there were no black jurors seated to hear their case, the Tennessean reports. Police have accused two men, Terance Bradley, and Hurley Brown, of attacking two people during a fight in which gunshots were fired and two men were injured. Both men have pleaded not guilty to charges of burglary, assault with a deadly weapon and possessing weapons while felons. Both men have been held in-custody for 18 months awaiting their trial.

Mary Hamilton and Tiffany Steele, the grandmother and mother of Bradley and Brown, respectively, both expressed outrage after watching prosecutors dismiss every black juror in the pool. The women said prosecutors dismissed only one white juror. Then they nixed every eligible black juror who was called up from the larger pool. “It was disgusting. It was irritating,” Steele told the paper. Hamilton agreed it wasn’t fair for the men to face a jury that contained not a single person of their own race.

“There’s still prejudice out there,” Hamilton told the Tennessean. “I don’t care what anyone says.”

While the jury was dismissed on a technicality, the incident has raised the issue of race and juries, the Tennessean reports.

Judge Cheryl Blackburn told the Tennessean she dismissed the jury because they ignored her instructions not to discuss the case before hearing all the evidence. And while the move resulted in further delays for the men’s trial, their family members do not believe they would have gotten a fair trial with that jury.

“There was an angel in the courtroom that day,” Steele told the paper. “Good for him for speaking up.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/juror-gets-two-black-men-a-new-trial-after-calling-out-elimination-of-african-americans-from-jury-pool/

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:06 pm

If people feel that juries are going to be biased one way or another based on their skin colour, maybe it's time to scrap the jury system altogether.

by Guest Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:06 pm

That makes no sense.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:08 pm

Hamilton agreed it wasn’t fair for the men to face a jury that contained not a single person of their own race.

Why? It can only be because if they're the same race, they're more likely to be biased in favour of the defendants.

by Guest Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:10 pm

No its because they need to tackle racial prejudice.

You again do not look at the cause of the problem and want to introduce an apartheid style jury system.

What next only black lawyers and judges as well to trial cases with blacks as defendants

What do you then do if the victims are black and the suspect is white?

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:12 pm

Going back to the O J Simpson trial, would there have been a different verdict if nine of the jurors had been white instead of black? I think an awful lot of people think that he was guilty. I don't say that of course.

If race is such an important issue when selecting juries, clearly the system is not working properly and juries are not going on the evidence.

by Guest Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:13 pm

Again you are not tackling the problem of prejudice.

I guess you cannot answer my points

So will allow others to do so if they share that view

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:15 pm

didge wrote:Again you are not tackling the problem of prejudice.

I guess you cannot answer my points

So will allow others to do so if they share that view

I guess you didn't understand my point about the O J Simpson jury then.

by Guest Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:Again you are not tackling the problem of prejudice.

I guess you cannot answer my points

So will allow others to do so if they share that view

I guess you didn't understand my point about the O J Simpson jury then.

Your view was again subjective

Again I asked you some simple questions

Its okay that you are unable to answer them

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:19 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I guess you didn't understand my point about the O J Simpson jury then.

Your view was again subjective

Again I asked you some simple questions

Its okay that you are unable to answer them

It's about time you addressed someone else's point instead of trying to bludgeon everyone into addressing your points.

I already addressed your point anyway. If there's racial prejudice within juries, then the system is flawed.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:20 pm

didge wrote:No its because they need to tackle racial prejudice.

You again do not look at the cause of the problem and want to introduce an apartheid style jury system.

What next only black lawyers and judges as well to trial cases with blacks as defendants

What do you then do if the victims are black and the suspect is white?

If this are the questions you want me to answer, your questions are flawed because you make assumptions based on nothing I actually said.

by Guest Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:21 pm

Like i said, I will leave my views for others.

If people cannot answer them, and then they expect I answer theirs after avoiding mine

Then that conversation is nullified as its pointless continuing with that individual.

I shall wait to what others say, who are not over emotional

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:24 pm

didge wrote:Like i said, I will leave my views for others.

If people cannot answer them, and then they expect I answer theirs after avoiding mine

Then that conversation is nullified as its pointless continuing with that individual.

I shall wait to what others say, who are not over emotional

If you can't address my point, you clearly have no understanding of the subject, so it was a waste of time you starting this thread really. You have a strange idea of what "emotional" is - no surprise there really.

by Victorismyhero Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:54 pm

@Ragga

why bother with the so called justice system at all....

let you decide...I mean you have this amazing ability to ascertain guilt or otherwise purely based on you personal POV

so why not go straight from arrest to the execution chamber.....

in your world the cops are never bent ...all witnesses are utterly reliable and ONLY guity people are arrested...

Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool 2190311264

Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool 2190311264

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:@Ragga

why bother with the so called justice system at all....

let you decide...I mean you have this amazing ability to ascertain guilt or otherwise purely based on you personal POV

so why not go straight from arrest to the execution chamber.....

in your world the cops are never bent ...all witnesses are utterly reliable and ONLY guity people are arrested...

Where did that bullshit come from? Certainly from nothing I said. Is Didgeitis infectious? Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool 2190311264

by Victorismyhero Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:02 pm

so why remove the right to jury trial....

what would you replace it with....?

THE LAW says (at least here) ....have the right to trail by a JURY OF HIS PEERS

that is to say a jury composed of equals...in ALL aspects...

THAT implies that a person has the right to a jury composed of the honest people most like him.

and in MOST but not all cases one which represents the community with which he lives

by Major Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:02 pm

A jury should be random selection with prosecution and defence having the right to challenge as has happund for donkiz yearz,

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:07 pm

Lord Foul wrote:so why remove the right to jury trial....

what would you replace it with....?

THE LAW says (at least here) ....have the right to trail by a JURY OF HIS PEERS

that is to say a jury composed of equals...in ALL aspects...

THAT implies that a person has the right to a jury composed of the honest people most like him.

and in MOST but not all cases one which represents the community with which he lives

I'm merely commenting on the issue generally. I mean look at the O J Simpson trial. Do you really think that the colour of the majority of the jurors had no bearing on the verdict? Look at the Zimmerman trial. People automatically assumed that the jury was biased because they were white, so the man couldn't move on even after the trial. The OP clearly says that juries are biased, depending on what colour they are and what colour the defendant is, so you tell me what the solution is.

This time, try not to invent things I haven't actually said. In fact, if you had paid any attention to my posts in the past, you'd know that I'm opposed to the death penalty, and that I've said nothing about the reliability of witnesses or that only guilty people get arrested. In fact, I have mentioned on several occasions that people are not necessarily guilty just because they've been arrested or put on trial.

by eddie Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:29 pm

You have to have a good and fair mix of people on a jury - it isn't hard to find fgs - and I agree with the juror in the OP.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:31 pm

eddie wrote:You have to have a good and fair mix of people on a jury - it isn't hard to find fgs - and I agree with the juror in the OP.

So the implication is that the only way people can be fair is if they're the same colour as the defendants?

by Victorismyhero Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:33 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:so why remove the right to jury trial....

what would you replace it with....?

THE LAW says (at least here) ....have the right to trail by a JURY OF HIS PEERS

that is to say a jury composed of equals...in ALL aspects...

THAT implies that a person has the right to a jury composed of the honest people most like him.

and in MOST but not all cases one which represents the community with which he lives

I'm merely commenting on the issue generally. I mean look at the O J Simpson trial. Do you really think that the colour of the majority of the jurors had no bearing on the verdict? Look at the Zimmerman trial. People automatically assumed that the jury was biased because they were white, so the man couldn't move on even after the trial. The OP clearly says that juries are biased, depending on what colour they are and what colour the defendant is, so you tell me what the solution is.

This time, try not to invent things I haven't actually said. In fact, if you had paid any attention to my posts in the past, you'd know that I'm opposed to the death penalty, and that I've said nothing about the reliability of witnesses or that only guilty people get arrested. In fact, I have mentioned on several occasions that people are not necessarily guilty just because they've been arrested or put on trial.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:35 pm

Did you have a point to make Mr Foul?

by eddie Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:You have to have a good and fair mix of people on a jury - it isn't hard to find fgs - and I agree with the juror in the OP.

So the implication is that the only way people can be fair is if they're the same colour as the defendants?

Nope. The implication is that there should be a good mix of people and that the people should somehow represent all walks of life, so that would mean at least two of the jurors be black?
That's simplified, obviously.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:37 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So the implication is that the only way people can be fair is if they're the same colour as the defendants?

Nope. The implication is that there should be a good mix of people and that the people should somehow represent all walks of life, so that would mean at least two of the jurors be black?
That's simplified, obviously.

Hmmmm. That suggests that black people can't be from the same walk of life as white people. The complaint wasn't that people from different walks of life weren't chosen, it was that none of the jurors were black.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:43 pm

It just seems to me that whoever is chosen, there's a problem. In the O J Simpson trial there were accusations that he was acquitted because the majority of the jury were black - ie, like him. In the Zimmerman trial, there were accusations that the he was acquitted because the majority of the jury were white - unlike the person who was shot.

If the O J Simpson jury had been mainly white and he had been acquitted, there would be no such accusation, but if he had been convicted, I have no doubt that some would have said the jury was biased against him because he's black. The same with the Zimmerman trial. If the jury had been black, I bet he would have been convicted - not on the evidence obviously.

If you have half and half, there would probably be a hung jury.

by Guest Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:47 pm

You are going off two major news criminal cases. Which because of such media attention were always going to have people divided over, so that is poor to base any reasoning off that. Most cases would not have so much media attention and that is half the problem, the media attention istelf

To claim half and half being a hung jury is stating then emphatically that every one is prejudiced. When we know people will not convict someone who is not the same ethnically based on the evidence and visa versa

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:58 pm

didge wrote:You are going off two major news criminal cases. Which because of such media attention were always going to have people divided over, so that is poor to base any reasoning off that. Most cases would not have so much media attention and that is half the problem, the media attention istelf

To claim half and half being a hung jury is stating then emphatically that every one is prejudiced. When we know people will not convict someone who is not the same ethnically based on the evidence and visa versa

Well that's what was claimed in the OP. Are you disagreeing?

Hamilton agreed it wasn’t fair for the men to face a jury that contained not a single person of their own race.

“There’s still prejudice out there,” Hamilton told the Tennessean. “I don’t care what anyone says.”

by Victorismyhero Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:39 pm

Stormee wrote:A simple trial for blacks would be -
MODERATED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simpul.

suspended via temporary ban pending discussion with admin

LF

by Syl Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:39 pm

Stormee wrote:A simple trial for blacks would be -
Moderated>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simpul.

Ahh yes....I see you are going back to the old method of deciding whether a woman was a witch or not....If she survives being held down in the water she is a witch...if she drowns she was innocent... Razz

I think a jury should be chosen randomly from the electoral role. The chosen applicants go into a pool ( a large hall) and 14 names are then called from the list. They are called and 12 of them are then picked to serve....once again randomly.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:47 pm

I'll speak to him elsewhere.

by Victorismyhero Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:49 pm

as you wish...

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:49 pm

Lord Foul wrote:as you wish...

That wasn't a flounce - it was just a statement of fact.

by Victorismyhero Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:51 pm

i didnt think it was.....

as posted its temporary until the matter has been discussed with BEN.......

by HoratioTarr Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:07 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Stormee wrote:A simple trial for blacks would be -
MODERATED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simpul.

suspended via temporary ban pending discussion with admin

LF

What's he like? I'm assuming he said the L word?

by Guest Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:08 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

suspended via temporary ban pending discussion with admin

LF

What's he like? I'm assuming he said the L word?

No he didn't, what he said was the most nauseating thing I have every read and I'm very glad Vic acted so quickly.

by Sponsored content

Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool

Re: Juror gets two black men a new trial after calling out elimination of African-Americans from jury pool