Curtis Flowers' conviction overturned over removal of black jurors

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Flowers’ trial record showed ‘relentless effort’ by prosecutor to rid jury of black individuals

The supreme court has thrown out the murder conviction and death sentence of a black man in Mississippi because of a prosecutor’s efforts to keep African Americans off the jury.

The justices ruled 7-2 that the removal of black prospective jurors had deprived Curtis Flowers of a fair trial.

The defendant has already been tried six times and could face a seventh trial.

The long record of Flowers’ trials stretching back more than 20 years shows district attorney Doug Evans’s “relentless, determined effort to rid the jury of black individuals”, with the goal of an all-white jury, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote.


https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/22/curtis-flowers-conviction-supreme-court-removal-of-black-jurors

Original Quill wrote:Southerners!

Who was the Supreme Court Judge here Quill, that overturned the conviction?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Southerners!

Who was the Supreme Court Judge here Quill, that overturned the conviction?

The Petitioner was the State of Mississippi. perhaps the most southern of southern states.

The conviction was overturned by the action of the entire Supreme Court, by a vote of 7 - 2.  

Judicial assignments for writing opinions are 'as available', as long as one is siding with the view.  Indeed, I remember when Justice Douglas wrote the opinions of both sides.  Justice Goldberg was having trouble writing his majority opinion on a case, and Justice Douglas, who wrote the dissent, said: "Let me help Abe.  I'm familiar with the case...and I've got time."

As I said, Justice Douglas wrote the majority and the dissent.  So it hardly matters who actually wrote the opinion.  

phildidge wrote:Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Flowers’ trial record showed ‘relentless effort’ by prosecutor to rid jury of black individuals

The supreme court has thrown out the murder conviction and death sentence of a black man in Mississippi because of a prosecutor’s efforts to keep African Americans off the jury.

The justices ruled 7-2 that the removal of black prospective jurors had deprived Curtis Flowers of a fair trial.

The defendant has already been tried six times and could face a seventh trial.

The long record of Flowers’ trials stretching back more than 20 years shows district attorney Doug Evans’s “relentless, determined effort to rid the jury of black individuals”, with the goal of an all-white jury, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote.


https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/22/curtis-flowers-conviction-supreme-court-removal-of-black-jurors

Fancy that

phildidge wrote:

phildidge wrote:Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Flowers’ trial record showed ‘relentless effort’ by prosecutor to rid jury of black individuals

The supreme court has thrown out the murder conviction and death sentence of a black man in Mississippi because of a prosecutor’s efforts to keep African Americans off the jury.

The justices ruled 7-2 that the removal of black prospective jurors had deprived Curtis Flowers of a fair trial.

The defendant has already been tried six times and could face a seventh trial.

The long record of Flowers’ trials stretching back more than 20 years shows district attorney Doug Evans’s “relentless, determined effort to rid the jury of black individuals”, with the goal of an all-white jury, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote.


https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/22/curtis-flowers-conviction-supreme-court-removal-of-black-jurors

Fancy that  

Are you stupid, or just hard of hearing.  What matters is the collective decision of the whole Court.  It's not autocratic; you have to have a majority of the justices to win.  

It doesn't matter who wrote the opinion.  For the most part, opinions are written by clerks anyway...final revisions are by the justice.  It’s a lot like speech writing. The press will say: 'The President said we should we should make America great again.'  Pshaw…he didn’t say that; a speech writer did.

Priceless entertainment. A conservative majority Supreme court ruling in favour of a minority wronged by the state.... And the Far left in Quill cannot see the irony

phildidge wrote:Priceless entertainment. A conservative majority Supreme court ruling in favour of a minority wronged by the state.... And the Far left in Quill cannot see the irony

But look at the question. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1880 in Strauder v. West Virginia that laws excluding blacks from jury service violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Not exactly a "Far Left" proposition, eh?

The left were all slagging Brett Kavvanagh off and then he fights for their courner on race.

Priceless

Well done to the Supreme court for the correct decision

phildidge wrote:The left were all slagging Brett Kavvanagh off and then he fights for their courner on race.

Priceless

Well done to the Supreme court for the correct decision

The left were slagging off Brett Kavanaugh because he was a serial gang rapist in his college days. His elite sexism has nothing to do with blacks.

Really, you can't think along a straight line, can you?

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:The left were all slagging Brett Kavvanagh off and then he fights for their courner on race.

Priceless

Well done to the Supreme court for the correct decision

The left were slagging off Brett Kavanaugh because he was a serial gang rapist in his college days.  His elite sexism has nothing to do with blacks.

Really, you can't think along a straight line, can you?

So you have convicted a man, without trial and you are supposed to be a lawyer

This is how the far left proceed with the criminal justice system. They convict people in their minds. There was zero evidence to even go fourth with a prosecution case
.
And this is the reality and insanity of he Far left. Quill questions countless convictions of grooming gangs, but based off no real evidence says someone is guilty and this man is meant to be a lawyerr

You cannot make up the bullshit this man comes out with

phil wrote:So you have convicted a man, without trial and you are supposed to be a lawyer

He was convicted after trial, dummy. Read the OP.  The issue in this case was racially biased juries.  That's what appeals are for.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:So you have convicted a man, without trial and you are supposed to be a lawyer

He was convicted after trial.  The issue in this case was racially biased juries.  That's what appeals are for.

Bullshit was he convicted, Judge Kavannagh wa clearly innocent of the claims made. As the main claimant even had her 3 witnesses not even corroborate her claim. The issuie here, is you cannot stomach the fact that this very man you condemned, has just become an ally in regards to race. Hence the irony

The Guardian wrote:The supreme court has thrown out the murder conviction and death sentence of a black man in Mississippi because of a prosecutor’s efforts to keep African Americans off the jury.

Next question.

Original Quill wrote:

The Guardian wrote:The supreme court has thrown out the murder conviction and death sentence of a black man in Mississippi because of a prosecutor’s efforts to keep African Americans off the jury.

Next question.

Yes and Judge Kavannagh was part of the Supreme court rulling a majority conservative supreme court.

It must be having you all tied up in knots here how you simple cannot even praise him for his part in this rulling???

This shows how the emnotions of people rule their thinking, which it does with you here Quill

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Next question.

Yes and Judge Kavannagh was part of the Supreme court rulling a majority conservative supreme court.

It must be having you all tied up in knots here how you simple cannot even praise him for his part in this rulling???

This shows how the emnotions of people rule their thinking, which it does with you here Quill

Unfortunately, you just don't get it.

Rape = criminal sexual assault of another.  Manipulation of racial composition of juries = violation of equal protection of laws, 14th Amendment.

They have nothing to do with one another.  Because they involve different issues, they have nothing in common.  That Kavanaugh was the perp in one crime, and the legal scribe in the other, is merely chance coincidence.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Yes and Judge Kavannagh was part of the Supreme court rulling a majority conservative supreme court.

It must be having you all tied up in knots here how you simple cannot even praise him for his part in this rulling???

This shows how the emnotions of people rule their thinking, which it does with you here Quill

Unfortunately, you just don't get it.

Rape = criminal sexual assault of another.  Manipulation of racial composition of juries = violation of equal protection of laws, 14th Amendment.

They have nothing to do with one another.  Because they involve different issues, they have nothing in common.  That Kavanaugh was the perp in one crime, and the legal scribe in the other, is merely chance coincidence.

Iget the fact that you should never practice law, when you convict people through thought and not through the criminal justice system

There is no evdience of a rape, the claimaint brought forward witnesses and none corroborated her story.

Hence nothing for a prosecutor to even take to trial on

Anywa, its really boring to converse with someone as warped and biased as you are

phil wrote:Iget the fact that you should never practice law, when you convict people through thought and not through the criminal justice system

You've gotta think before you act...a concept that eludes you, at least in your writing.

phil wrote:There is no evdience of a rape, the claimaint brought forward witnesses and none corroborated her story.

Ha-ha...that's because the Senate refused to allow any other witnesses to testify.  You're the typical, gullible RW'er, who believes what the politician tells you as he leads you around by the ring in your nose.  

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:There is no evdience of a rape, the claimaint brought forward witnesses and none corroborated her story.

Ha-ha...that's because the Senate refused to allow any other witnesses to testify.  You're the typical, gullible RW'er, who believes what the politician tells you as he leads you around by the ring in your nose.  

Paranoia alert.
The reason was none of her witnesses corroborated her story. That was her own witnesses. Hence the senate had nothing to do with this and again why you should never practice law. When you cannot even get the basics right
Like I said, this is eating you up inside that someone who slagged off and continually lie about, is now an ally on fighting racism.

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ha-ha...that's because the Senate refused to allow any other witnesses to testify.  You're the typical, gullible RW'er, who believes what the politician tells you as he leads you around by the ring in your nose.  

Paranoia alert.

The reason was none of her witnesses corroborated her story.

Yes, they all did. But the Senate said they were not allowed to testify, because they didn't have time.

Moreover, you know this. You were arguing the Senate's side when this was a hot subject. Ha-ha...you are a fucking liar. Are your children proud of you?

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Paranoia alert.

The reason was none of her witnesses corroborated her story.

Yes, they all did.  But the Senate said they were not allowed to testify, because they didn't have time.

Moreover, you know this.  You were arguing the Senate's side when this was a hot subject.  Ha-ha...you are a fucking liar.  Are your children proud of you?

Interview Subjects

The FBI interviewed the following ten individuals:

Ford Allegations

The three individuals identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as having attended the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted. Mark Judge PJ Smyth Leland Keyser
Mark Judge
PJ Smyth
Leland Keyser
Two other individuals included on Judge Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry. Timothy Gaudette Christopher Garrett
Timothy Gaudette
Christopher Garrett
An attorney for one of the witnesses
Ramirez Allegations

Deborah Ramirez
Two alleged eyewitnesses named by Deborah Ramirez (a third alleged eyewitness refused to submit to an interview)
Deborah Ramirez’s close friend from college
Conclusion

The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez.

I love it when Quill exposes himself as looking a right ignorant lying wally

phildidge wrote:I love it when Quill exposes himself as looking a right ignorant lying wally

You wish I would expose myself.  You suck.  

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:I love it when Quill exposes himself as looking a right ignorant lying wally

You wish I would expose myself.  You suck.  

Get a room, boys. You know it makes sense. (I won't judge you! )

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


You wish I would expose myself.  You suck.  

Get a room, boys. You know it makes sense. (I won't judge you! )

Ha-ha...I couldn't resist that one.  And since he was talking ad hominem nonsense by that time anyway, the topic was already long past.