Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Evidence of Bias in Jury Deliberations Can Lead to a Retrial

posted by on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-biased,-just-racist dept.

takyon writes:

SCOTUSblog reports:

A Colorado man who was required to register as a sex offender after being convicted of unlawful sexual contact with two teenage girls will get a shot at a new trial, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled today. Miguel Peña-Rodriguez had asked a state trial court for a new trial after two jurors told his lawyers that a third juror had made racially biased remarks about Peña-Rodriguez and his main witness, who are both Hispanic. But the state trial court rejected Peña-Rodriguez's request, citing a state evidentiary rule that generally bars jurors from testifying about statements made during deliberations that might call the verdict into question. In a major ruling on juror bias and fair trials, the Supreme Court reversed that holding by a vote of 5-3 and sent Peña-Rodriguez's case back to the lower courts for them to consider the two jurors' testimony for the first time.

Supreme Court's decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado.

Also at Reuters, NYT, NPR, USA Today, and Bloomberg.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Evidence of Bias in Jury Deliberations Can Lead to a Retrial | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 27 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:58PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:58PM (#476744)

    "He looks guilty. Didn't you see him (shifting in his chair/not looking the person in the face/stammering/whatever)?"

    "Her alibi didn't sound very convincing to me."

    "He just looks guilty."

    "She's guilty, I just know it."

    It's easy to allude to racist reasoning without outright saying it. And even if one doesn't acknowledge it in any way, hidden racism will have a major factor. A person can think "Of course she's innocent, there is no way a white/black/Asian/Hispanic/etc person would ever be capable of doing that" and never say it.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:27AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:27AM (#476899)

    I think you assume that racism has a goal. Generally people aren't racist because they like racism, and probably almost as rarely they don't aim to hurt those people themselves, they just "honestly" think these people are bad, evil, lazy, they just dislike/hate them, ...
    Racism rarely is about an evil mastermind, for which your "plan" would apply.