SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:13PM (5 children)
They know that and that's why the selection process involves excusing jurors including some that don't require cause.
The problem is when people lie about their prejudices to get onto a case.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:49PM (4 children)
The problem is when people lie about their prejudices to get onto a case.
Or when you know that telling the truth will definitely get you thrown off the jury. I was waiting for them to ask us whether anybody had heard of jury nullification before.
This was a civil case so I can't imagine I would've come up with any excuse to exercise it, but I was still wondering how I would answer the question, being under oath and all. They never asked, I assume because they know that name-dropping it would've resulted in about half the potential jurors googling the term at the first opportunity :)
Back in the day judges got suuuuuper pissed if the jury tried to think for itself.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:22PM (2 children)
No, they get sick of people like you disrespecting their authority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:30PM
http://fija.org/ [fija.org]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/07/rethinking-jury-nullification/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:49PM
Thanks, Cartman.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:19AM
The problem with jury nullification is that it is a two edged sword. Too often it has been used to acquit KKK members of murder as obviously a law that makes lynching black people murder is a law that deserves nullification.