No one in GD is interested in this but maybe this group will be

[gollygee]

I thought, with all the discussion of whether it's all about wealth and not about race, an example of explicit racism that even a state supreme court refuses to acknowledge would be relevant. But my post about it sank.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/foster_v_humphry_at_supreme_court_prosecutors_cut_all_black_jurors_in_death.html

The prosecutors seeking to send Timothy Tyrone Foster to death row went about their job in a curious manner. During jury selection, they highlighted each black prospective juror’s name in green—on four different copies of the jury list—and wrote that the green highlighting “represents blacks.” On each black juror’s questionnaire, prosecutors circled the response “black” next to a question about race. They also referred to three black jurors as “B#1,” “B#2,” and “B#3” in their notes. Finally, the prosecution’s investigator ranked each black juror against the others—in case “it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors.”

The prosecutors struck each black candidate, one by one, from the jury pool until none remained.

At the end of the trial, prosecutors asked the jury to impose the death penalty on Foster, to “deter other people out there in the projects.” The all-white jury convicted Foster of murder and sentenced him to death.

Foster, a black man, appealed his conviction to the Georgia Supreme Court. Striking black jurors on account of their race is unconstitutional, and Foster believed he deserved a new trial. But the Georgia Supreme Court rejected his claim. Prosecutors had not “demonstrated purposeful discrimination” in striking black jurors, the court held. There was no racial bias in the prosecution of Timothy Tyrone Foster. His execution could move forward.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Good grief, that happened this year????

That doesn't even seem possible but as it is Georgia, it's not entirely surprising.

[blackspade]

2. Despicable

[SusanCalvin]

3. That's scary.

I'm not one of the people who thinks "that couldn't happen to me."

Also disgusting that garbage like this still happens.

Edited to add that if all black jurors were excluded, the *prosecution* should have to prove it wasn't purposeful discrimination (not that they could). In a rational world.

[gwheezie]

4. I read the gd post earlier

This is an example of what I've been arguing for years. The systemic racism that underlies all our institutions should be a national issue that is met head on in any political debate. We have not corrected errors of the past if they are allowed to persist in the present.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Wow ...

there's about half a century of precedent that the ruling should have been different. I'm posting to this so that later I can go find and read the GASC's opinion. There has to be something else in there more than "Prosecutors had not “demonstrated purposeful discrimination” in striking black jurors."

There just has to be!

[azurnoir]

6. The judges remark to the jury alone should warrent a retrial

more over the judge should be removed from the bench

[daleanime]

12. Hell yes....

should never judge another case ever.

[Enthusiast]

24. +1

[heaven05]

7. amerikkka 2015

no surprise, since we the people have let the situation(s) of racial and economic equality just slip away into the dustbin of history. Well maybe not the dustbin, but the dust pan for sure, almost to the dustbin. NOTHING surprises about 'justice' in amerikkka anymore. Obvious in your face, fuck you, POC. And GD wouldn't touch this, they really, for the most part, could give a damn less about the implications of this retro justice in Georgia for a POC, in the 'new south'. That forum has given me a good idea of progressive and liberal thought and concern about racial and economic equality in amerikkka., today, 2015. I stay away so I don't say something truthful that will get me alerted on or stalked at the least.

[mountain grammy]

8. In a 2008 case, SCOTUS ruled for the defendant..

This, from the article:

In 2008, faced with indisputable evidence of prosecutorial racism hidden behind a patina of neutrality, the court gave Batson an update in Snyder v. Louisiana. Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito (yes, that Alito) wrote that defendants need only prove a peremptory strike was motivated “in substantial part by discriminatory intent.” In other words, racism didn’t need to be the sole factor behind the strike—just a major part of it. And Alito cracked down on the obvious pretenses prosecutors employ, allowing judges to critically analyze “suspicious” justifications for striking black jurors.

When a justice like Alito sees it, the discrimination must be so fucking obvious, like in this case. But, like most of us here, I never trust this court to do the humanly right or even the Constitutionally right thing.

Glad this is getting some attention here, K&R.

[Dont call me Shirley]

9. That is sick and criminal.

Stay classy bigots

[Lisa D]

10. Horrible

If they don't see that as "purposeful discrimination" I'd hate to imagine the kind of proof they'd need.

[Number23]

11. But it's not race, it's class!!1

So black jurors were dismissed because everyone knows that black people are super tribalistic and will always "take care" of one another while white people as jurors will be unimpeachable bastions of truth and justice.

And the court is saying no racial bias could be proven? Genuinely don't know how this could be more of a clear cut case of racial bias, against the defendant and the jurors.

[daleanime]

13. This is a case of straight forward racism.....

but there's nothing wrong with looking at the problems of class either. It's not one or the other, it's both and a ton of other problems as well. We have a ton to work to do.

[Number23]

14. This has NOTHING to do with class. And most racism doesn't either.

[daleanime]

17. No, it doesn't. Like I said this case is straight racism....

the fact that some judge can look at and not agree is disgusting. Issues of racism and class are separate, kind of....

Racism has far too often been used as a tool, many refer to politicians use of 'dog whistles', to divide what should be natural allies. And it's this divide allows/encourages(?) racism. All poor/working/middle class have the same desirer's. Sufficient food, shelter, health care and education for themselves and their families.


Working toward these goals wouldn't 'solve' racism, but they would make the lives of the vast majority of minorities sufficiently better. And that would make it worth doing, at least to me. And the increased social mobility can't help but be an improvement. Plus pushing this thou our government system will give us a great chance to deal with the bigots face to face.

I'm probably over reacting a bit, but the issues of class and racism do overlap. Working on one doe's not take away from the other. And heaven knows we have a lot of work to do.

[Number23]

18. Why do you keep posting the angel smiley?

And racism is not a "tool" in this country. It is one of the bedrock principles on which this country was founded.

[daleanime]

19. My attempt to show that I'm being honest.....

I kind of like that image, when we started building this nation we never made sure we had a proper foundation. Just went right to work on top of enormous boulder, which is why the house shakes ever now and then. To repair it we'll need to make some structural changes.

Unfortunately, it's constantly used as a tool, view the old Willie Horton ads or just turn on Faux any night. "Scary Black Folks, be afraid, be very afraid." That's not done by accident. There are results that they want to acquire. I would love to see some research into rate and intensity of racist incidents since Faux has been on the air. Willing to bet that there's been a steady climb.

The problem is how to change it, a clean up legal system is long overdue.

[SoapBox]

15. Terrible!

[Ford_Prefect]

16. What would the outcome of the Supreme Court case decide?

Is it about biased jury selection during the original 1987 trial? Is it about the degree of punishment approved by that jury? Is it about the defendant's conviction in the original trial?

Is it about the mental capacity of the defendant which was appealed in 1988?

Is it about the Georgia Supreme Court upholding the original jury finding in 2000?

Is it about systemic racism in the legal system of Georgia in 1987, 1990, or 2000?

Racism is certainly endemic in the Justice system. What I would like to know is what the Supreme Court, finding in Foster's favor, would conclude regarding the trial and/or sentencing or appeals? What would the outcome be for Foster in that instance?

Reading through the findings of the courts for Foster's appeals makes it hard to see how this will turn out, other than a finding that the original jury was biased by the prosecutors to guarantee a death sentence. If overturned would that lead to a life sentence or a retrial. How does the appeal to SCOTUS read?

[gollygee]

20. If you read the OP

I think you'll see that they're saying that the jury selection process was unconsitutional and he should get a new trial.

[Ford_Prefect]

21. I have no doubt he was denied due process through the striking of black jury candidates,

which was the result of coordinated efforts of the prosecutors, which the recently available evidence has made clear.

What I read in the appeal statement to SCOTUS (below) is that he is appealing the sentencing not the conviction. I see no reference to other evidence of his guilt or innocence, or to malpractice on the part of prosecutors other than the jury selection.

https://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015.01.30-Foster-Cert-Petition.pdf

[gollygee]

27. It's possible that he still thinks he'd be found guilty

I mean obviously he might very well be guilty, and if he knows he is and knows there's plenty of evidence to convict him, he might not want a whole new trial. But if he thinks the sentencing was a result of the all-white jury, he might still ask to have the sentencing changed. I suppose it's between him and his lawyers to decide what to ask.

[Lifelong Protester]

22. Horrible system-wide racism

K & R for the sad truth.

[Enthusiast]

23. Jesus Christ......

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[freshwest]

25. Jury of one's peers shouldn't *have* to be the same race, but... they excluded them.

Reminds me of all those slayings over the years where all-white juries let off klansmen for murder.

It as sickening, like a cancer that someone threw a band aid over and pretended it wasn't there.

And this court still thought it was okay to do this?

I fear the current USSC would aprroval of this ruling!

[Kalidurga]

26. Well this is the state that executed Troy Davis

Even after witnesses recanted and they had no physical evidence to tie him to the scene of the crime.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. As I thought, the case isn't as ridiculously clear, as presented ...

Foster argues the state habeas court failed to apply properly the three-step Batson analysis. In particular, the last step of that analysis asks whether, under all the relevant circumstances, the state’s facially race-neutral explanation for a strike should be believed. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96. See also Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 (2008); Miller-El v. Cockrell (Miller-El I), 537 U.S. 322, 339 (2003); Miller-El v. Dretke (Miller-El II), 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). The state habeas court deferred to the previous state-court finding that the prosecutor articulated race neutral reasons and gave short shrift to the jury selection notes which, Foster argues, give the lie to the state’s proffered race-neutral reasons.

http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/timothy-tyrone-foster-v-humphrey-warden-ussc-no-14-8349-cert-granted-52615/

Here are the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for striking the 4 Black potential jurors:

The first juror has a son the same age as the defendant who has been convicted of a misdemeanor theft offense. His wife works at the Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital, a mental health facility. His brother was once a drug consultant. During the Witherspoon questioning, the juror appeared to be reluctant to say that he could vote for a death sentence, and he is a member of a church whose members, in the experience of the prosecutor, tend to be very reluctant to impose the death penalty.

The defendant concedes the prosecutor was justified in striking the second juror, who, among other things, had talked to the defendant's mother before entering the courtroom.

The third juror claimed to be the half-sister of the district attorney's chief investigator (who is black). The investigator, however, denied being related in any way to this juror. Moreover, the juror denied having a friend or relative accused or convicted of a crime of violence and denied knowing anyone with a drug or alcohol problem notwithstanding that her brother is a repeat offender whose crimes involve theft by taking, burglary and drugs, and that her husband has been convicted for carrying a concealed weapon.

The fourth juror is a social worker involved with low-income, underprivileged children. Her first cousin was arrested by the Metro Drug Task force on serious drug charges and the cousin lost her job as a consequence.

The prosecutor explained that he did not want social workers on the jury in a death penalty case, as they tended to sympathize with criminal defendants, especially at the penalty phase. Moreover he preferred not to allow on the jury anyone who was closely related to someone with a drug or alcohol problem, since the defendant in this case planned to blame the crime on his own drug and alcohol problem. He further stated that he could not trust someone who gave materially untruthful answers on voir dire, as did the third juror. Finally, he was prepared to challenge peremptorily any juror who was reluctant to impose the death penalty as a matter of conscience where the juror's opposition to the death penalty did not rise to the level justifying a disqualification for cause.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=%22374+s.e.2d+188%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,50&case=18225788296356899631&scilh=0

Baston applies "great deference" to the prosecutor's proffered reasons to strike, even where there is evidence that the reasons proffered are pretext.

But my bigger question is, in a county where 15% of the residents are Black (as is Floyd county), why were the only 4 Blacks that proceeded to voir dire?

[Ford_Prefect]

29. It has been suggested the Foster jury candidates were "herded" to arrange more black prospects

to the back of the selection group. One of the articles on the methods used to get all white juries described this as common practice.

Foster does not allege that this happened to his jury group but it is a well known tactic in Georgia and elsewhere. Evidence for this could have only come from observers who were in the room during the "herding". It may also have been a function of several jury candidate re-arrangements in sequence rather than one single move. It could also have occurred during the process of admitting the jury pool to the courtroom used for selection.