Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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This discussion has been archived.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.
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: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:59PM (4 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:59PM (#476745) Journal

    Erm... no?

    As my above post describes, I'm not sure what an ideal approach to this would be, but the idea of removing bias has been a staple of our justice system since far before it was imported from England.

    The idea of Jurors being removed if they had existing biases(not racial biases, personal ones) about the defendant is centuries old, as is judges recusing themselves for biases. The very idea of precedent is basically a way of minimizing the influence of individual biases on decisions. So are written laws for that matter. In fact, there's a lot of ways in which the very history of justice systems are of battles against specific biases.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:41PM (3 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:41PM (#476761)

    They already grill the jury with various questions designed to uncover biases that are directly harmful to their arguments. I'm not yet convinced that the whole case should be overturned because the lawyers didn't perform their job flawlessly. If this single guy on the jury managed to sway the entire decision with his views, I'm looking at 11 other people who also bear some fault.

    Being biased doesn't necessarily equal the decision was wrong and be retried. Or is someone who says they can set their bias aside and render a fair verdict always wrong? It's all about where you set the bar.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:24PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:24PM (#476777)

      This is a SCOTUS case, so it isn't just about this guy.

      If there wasn't a substantial effect on the decision, then the re-trial will find the same result. If there was a substantial effect, then the guy should be entitled to a fair trial.

      If it were my trial and it has one juror that is willing to declare me guilty based on my race and ignore witness testimony for the same reason, then that is still an intolerable amount. Where would you set your bar?

      • (Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:22AM

        by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:22AM (#476890)

        I'd be setting my bar in a completely different, and legal place, compared to where Miguel set his bar.

        --
        Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:03PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:03PM (#477075)

        If there wasn't a substantial effect on the decision, then the re-trial will find the same result.

        After wasting the taxpayers and parties involved a lot of time and money.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"