Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Study Grants Tennessee Juries Dubious Distinction
Posted by Brantley Hargrove on Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:41 PM
According to a study released by the Equal Justice Initiative in Birmingham, Ala., voir dire in Southern courtrooms continues to reveal some ugly remnants of Jim Crow, and Tennessee appellate courts either refuse to examine inequities in jury selection, or simply can't. Eight Southern states were selected for the study: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee.
In South Carolina, for example (and Pith shits you not) a prosecutor eliminated a black man from the panel of potential jurors because he "shucked and jived" when he walked. Elsewhere, potential jurors were removed with thinly veiled motivations. They seemed unintelligent. They were single. They were married. They lived in high-crime areas. They went to an historically black college.
In Tennessee, one was removed for wearing a big hat and sunglasses. In another case, the prosecutor struck only blacks from the jury panel, and removed one for being "tentative and timid." In both cases, a black man was tried either by an all-white jury, or a jury with a single black member. Juries of their peers, indeed.
Tennessee, unfortunately, turned out to be the real outlier here. The Volunteer State was the only state in the study where a convicted person has never successfully appealed on the Batson rule — precedent banning discrimination against potential jurors. There could be a number of reasons for this. The prosecutor can claim he/she was motivated by factors other than race. The appellate court doesn't have the capability or the incentive to investigate whether or not the prosecutor is bullshitting the high judges. The defense attorney wasn't doing his job during jury selection and calling the prosecutor out on his bullshit ... etc., etc.
Comments (0)