Is Kentucky defying the U. S. Supreme Court?
In Batson V. Kentucky, a shameful case of immense constitutional proportions, the U. S. Supreme Court held that the Kentucky practice of allowing the deliberate exclusion of Blacks from juries "undermines public confidence in our system of justice and touches the entire community", and that prosecutors and defense Attorneys must offer a "race-neutral" reason for doing so if challenged by the other attorney. Now it appears that Kentucky courts may be up to their old tricks again, in an OBVIOUS violation of the U. S. Supreme Court "race-neutral" mandate, which touches upon the U. S. Constitution's SUPREMACY Clause. Sad to say how some of us are QUICK to make it to church EVERY Sabbath day, but are NOT so willing to follow the Bible's teaching about the GOLDEN RULE and loving one another!
Labels: Civil rights, Constitutional Rights, Judicial integrity, Justice, Religion
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 6:01 PM
7 Comments:
I wonder how much of this is entirely sub-conscious? It would have to be hard to say to yourself as a prosecutor "I need to get folks with as little in common (with the defendant) as I can, and separate race as an issue as well. Kind of like the legendary 93 yr old white grandma stopped at airport security while three shifty guys in turbans walk past, just to keep from "profiling". I guess my question is, where is the line drawn between "acceptable profiling" and that which is unacceptable?
It has to be "race-neutral"!
Mr. KYJURISDOCTOR, rather, isn't that "Batson"?
Why not "age neutral"? "gender neutral"? Isn't discrimination discrimination?
And...who's doing the complaining? I know very few people (black, white, cuban, asian, etc.) who would complain about getting "passed over" for jury duty! LOL
It is NOT a question of being "passed" over for jury duty, but being DENIED a jury of one's peers. Those "few people" you mention will have a colorable claim for racial discrimination, unless there's a race-neutral reason advanced for the practice!
It is NOT a question of being "passed" over for jury duty, but being DENIED a jury of one's peers. Those "few people" you mention will have a colorable (pardon the pun) claim for racial discrimination, unless there's a race-neutral reason advanced for the practice!
"angus": Typo on Batson -- while typing too fast -- corrected and link to the decision added. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home