WA Supreme Court Justice Charlie
Wiggins cited Batson v Kentucky as
legal precedent to show that institutional discrimination still exists in jury
selection. According to “Wikipedia” this was a case in 1986 where
James Kirkland Batson, an African American man, was convicted of burglary
and receipt of stolen goods. During the voiere (questioning) of jurors the
Prosecution dismissed 4 potential Black jurors and Batson was convicted by an
all-White jury. The defendant appealed his conviction to the Kentucky Supreme
Court, which affirmed the conviction. That court cited Swain v. Alabama, and held that a defendant alleging lack of
a fair cross section must demonstrate “systematic exclusion” of a group of jurors
from the panel of prospective jurors. That is, the defendant had to show that
not just in his case, but as a process, juries in his community were being
constructed so as to not represent a cross section of that community.
Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Writ of certiorari to decide
whether petitioner was tried "in violation of constitutional provisions
guaranteeing the defendant an impartial jury and a jury composed of
persons representing a ‘fair’ cross section of the community.
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell, the
Supreme Court ruled in Batson's favor. The court overruled Swain v. Alabama
by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must meet to make a prima
facie case of purposeful discrimination. In Swain, the Court had
recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on
account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice
violates the Equal Protection Clause", but that the defendant had the burden
of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that
is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. In Batson
the court ruled that the defendant could make a prima facie case for
purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record
only in his own case. The Court explained:
The defendant
first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the
prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire [jury
pool] members of the defendant's race. The defendant may also rely on the fact
that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits
those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate. Finally, the defendant
must show that such facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an
inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude the
veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the defendant
makes a “prima facie” showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward
with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.
The Court also held that:- A State
denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial
before a jury from which members of his race have been purposely
excluded;
- A defendant
has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons
of his own race. [NOTE:
Wouldn’t this apply to White people, too?] However, the Equal Protection
Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members
of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false
assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve
as jurors.
How
would it be if a white criminal defendant faced an all-Black jury, would their attorneys
not issue a ‘prima facie’ challenge about the exclusion of white jurors? Well,
if it is seen as absurd to have Black jurors deliberate in trials of White
people then by the same “equal protection” logic it is even more so for Black
criminal defendants to have their fates decided by White people. Is it because
Black people cannot understand all the discovery (evidence) and legal arguments
between the Prosecution and Assigned Counsel (Defense), or are racial
minorities more sympathetic toward criminal behavior? White people are not any
more law-abiding, moral, or intelligent than anybody else, so their
disproportionate numbers as jurors has to be balanced with inclusion of more
non-Whites to bring integrity and respect to the Justice system, as well as the
courts that it has never enjoyed in quite some time, or at all; especially from
disenfranchised persons of color.
776 Commerce St #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 3, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
