Anonymous wrote:If the prosecutor is trying to get a conviction and thinks a person will automatically vote for acquittal, he will strike the person. Period. That is not racist. That is fact. As PP said, the OJ trail didn't help things.

I think the point is that, per the article, Blacks are stricken from juries at a rate of 3x that of their white counterparts. It's also true that you are not allowed to strike people for race alone. So the lawyers have to make up these dumb excuses like "he had a beard" to cover for the fact that they don't think a Black person should sit on the jury.

Of course, no one wants to talk about why it is that Black Americans have less faith in the criminal justice system than their white peers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor botched the oj case. The vote to acquit was unanimous. Stop blaming black people.

When one juror throws the Black Panther's symbol, he should not have BEEN a juror.

What exactly is the Black Panther symbol?

I have no idea what the Black Panther symbol is, unless it's the raised fist of Black Power. Incidentally, I believe that happened AFTER the jury came to their verdict, not during the trial. IANAL, but I'm not sure you can invalidate a jury's decision for something that happens after the trial is over and the verdict has been ratified by the judge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor botched the oj case. The vote to acquit was unanimous. Stop blaming black people.

When one juror throws the Black Panther's symbol, he should not have BEEN a juror.

What exactly is the Black Panther symbol?

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor botched the oj case. The vote to acquit was unanimous. Stop blaming black people.

When one juror throws the Black Panther's symbol, he should not have BEEN a juror.

Anonymous wrote:From article:

"Caddo Parish is 48 percent black, and 83 percent of the defendants in the new study were black. But the typical 12-member criminal jury had fewer than four blacks on it, the report said.Much of the gap had nothing to do with peremptory strikes. Of the 8,318 potential jurors in the study, which reviewed 332 trials from 2003 to 2012, only 35 percent were black."

The racist justification.

"Here are some reasons prosecutors have offered for excluding blacks from juries: They were young or old, single or divorced, religious or not, failed to make eye contact, lived in a poor part of town, had served in the military, had a hyphenated last name, displayed bad posture, were sullen, disrespectful or talkative, had long hair, wore a beard."

Of course, there is no racism any more and Jindal will never address this. David Vitter who is poised to be the next governor of Louisiana has spoken publicly in favor of slavery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/us/politics/exclusion-of-blacks-from-juries-raises-renewed-scrutiny.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

You reversed the order of the above two paragraphs in the story. One key here is the "Much of the gap had nothing to do with peremptory strikes." and the fact that 1/3rd of the jury is black and 1/3rd of those called as prospective jurors were black.

And your...''there is no racism"...sure there is and what would you do if there wasn't?

The prosecutor botched the oj case. The vote to acquit was unanimous. Stop blaming black people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the prosecutor is trying to get a conviction and thinks a person will automatically vote for acquittal, he will strike the person. Period. That is not racist. That is fact. As PP said, the OJ trail didn't help things.

PP^^So, in other words, only white people should be allowed to serve on juries because they have the natural ability to remain unbiased in all cases. Which, when I think about it makes complete sense. That one black juror who raised a Black Panther salute after acquitting OJ Simpson proved that Blacks can not impartially sit in judgement of other Blacks. Also, since OJ Simpson had an all Black jury, it further proves that Blacks should not serve on juries of any Black defendants. Blacks also shouldn't serve on juries of white defendants either because Blacks have animus towards whites. Thus, only whites should be allowed to serve on juries. Now that makes perfect sense. I just needed to type it out to understand your point.

OJ did not have an all black jury. It was predominantly Black. The was a white woman and a Latino woman on the jury. But it makes racists feel better to say it was a only blacks on the jury.

Anonymous wrote:If the prosecutor is trying to get a conviction and thinks a person will automatically vote for acquittal, he will strike the person. Period. That is not racist. That is fact. As PP said, the OJ trail didn't help things.

You want to revisit history. How did that all white Rodney King acquittal make a difference in this conversation? Or, the all white jury who acquitted the white men who lynched Emmitt Till? And so on and so on.

The state is dysfunctional. Can we give it to France?

Anonymous wrote:If the prosecutor is trying to get a conviction and thinks a person will automatically vote for acquittal, he will strike the person. Period. That is not racist. That is fact. As PP said, the OJ trail didn't help things.

PP^^So, in other words, only white people should be allowed to serve on juries because they have the natural ability to remain unbiased in all cases. Which, when I think about it makes complete sense. That one black juror who raised a Black Panther salute after acquitting OJ Simpson proved that Blacks can not impartially sit in judgement of other Blacks. Also, since OJ Simpson had an all Black jury, it further proves that Blacks should not serve on juries of any Black defendants. Blacks also shouldn't serve on juries of white defendants either because Blacks have animus towards whites. Thus, only whites should be allowed to serve on juries. Now that makes perfect sense. I just needed to type it out to understand your point.

Anonymous wrote:If the prosecutor is trying to get a conviction and thinks a person will automatically vote for acquittal, he will strike the person. Period. That is not racist. That is fact. As PP said, the OJ trail didn't help things.

Huh? How many white jurors have not convicted white people of crimes? But one trial of a black man who wasn't convicted and no more black jurors?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except we are talking about louisiana. Thestomping ground of unfettered republican racists and racism.
83% conviction rate for blacks. 33% representation on juries.

Louisana. Where justice is for white people.

Just curious, where did you grow up?

I'm not PP but I grew up in Louisiana and this is accurate.

Anonymous wrote:Except we are talking about louisiana. Thestomping ground of unfettered republican racists and racism.
83% conviction rate for blacks. 33% representation on juries.

Louisana. Where justice is for white people.

Just curious, where did you grow up?

Except we are talking about louisiana. Thestomping ground of unfettered republican racists and racism.
83% conviction rate for blacks. 33% representation on juries.

Louisana. Where justice is for white people.

Personally know a man who was assaulted and robbed. He had a companion with him. He was pistol whipped. Perp was caught right away and identified by both men. He was also caught with the goods. At the first trial, there was a hung jury because one person decided right off the bat that there would be no conviction. The evidence was overwhelming. There was a second trial and a conviction. A juror from the first trial stopped the victim on the street one day and apologized for the hung jury. He said that there was no way this one guy would convict the perp. There were black people on both juries. However, the one who refused to convict during the first trial was black as was the perp.

It probably works both ways, but the goal of the prosecuting attorney is to convict the guilty. If he/she thinks someone is unlikely to vote for conviction, he will strike him. That is his right and our justice system will suffer if you eliminate that right. Just as the defense attorney also has the right to strike.