Patterico's Pontifications

1/20/2006

L.A. Times Does Not Tell Whole Story on Supreme Court Case

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 6:39 am



David Savage at the L.A. Times reported yesterday on a Supreme Court case that held that a prosecutor had not exercised her peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory fashion. (Full disclosure: I have met the prosecutor in question.) Savage does the prosecutor a disservice by failing to adequately explain the reasons that the prosecutor had offered for striking a black juror.

The validity of the prosecutor’s race-neutral justifications for dismissing one black juror was the central issue in the case. The article says only this on that subject:

Collins, who is black, accused the prosecutor of racial bias in selecting his jury. Only one black male was seated on the jury, and the defendant’s lawyer objected when two black women were struck from the jury pool. The prosecutor said the women were “too tolerant of this type of case.”

Actually, on appeal, the defendant challenged the striking of only one of the black women. The other had a daughter with a cocaine problem, and this was a cocaine possession case. As Chief Justice Roberts said at oral argument, this was a “perfectly legitimate reason” for striking that juror.

As to the other juror, the story makes it sound as though the only justification offered by the prosecutor was that the juror would be “too tolerant” of a cocaine case. But the opinion and oral argument transcript make clear that the prosecutor offered numerous race-neutral justifications for the dismissal of that juror besides the statement that the juror would be “too tolerant” of that type of case. From the opinion:

As race-neutral explanations for striking Juror 16, the prosecutor said that Juror 16 had rolled her eyes in response to a question from the court; that Juror 16 was young and might be too tolerant of a drug crime; and that Juror 16 was single and lacked ties to the community.

The eye-rolling is critical. Speaking as a trial lawyer, I am suspicious of jurors who roll their eyes at a question from the court — unless, of course, the court’s question would naturally inspire anyone to roll their eyes. One of the things you look for in potential jurors is an attitude of contempt for the system or for the lawyers, the judge, or fellow jurors. If a potential juror is rolling their eyes at the judge’s legitimate questions, that sets off an alarm in my head, and that juror will be stricken.

The other factors are also significant. Generally speaking, prosecutors prefer jurors with more life experience and ties to the community. They prefer married people with children who own homes. These are not hard-and-fast rules. You have to look at their body language and listen to their responses carefully. A young, single person might make a great juror. But not if they are rolling their eyes at the court.

Given that the entire case was about the legitimacy of the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons for excusing the juror, the L.A. Times should have found a little more room to give a more complete description of the prosecutor’s reasons for the dismissal.

By the way, Savage got the sentence wrong in the case:

A Superior Court jury in Los Angeles convicted Collins of cocaine possession 10 years ago. Because of his prior convictions for robbery and rape, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Well, 25 years to life, but who’s counting? (Except maybe Collins.)

17 Responses to “L.A. Times Does Not Tell Whole Story on Supreme Court Case”

  1. Too bad there isn’t a commission to take the LATimes to when they are race baiting and being blatantly biased. I think if the editors had to spend time in jail and have to suffer people like Hugh Hewitt replacing them, they’d straighten up in a hurry.

    PCD (f14ddd)

  2. PCD has one thing right: The prospect of having Hugh Hewitt running around loose in public without a muzzle should make any intelligent person nervous.

    Mikekoshi (f85090)

  3. Hey, if Cooley’s (or Ipsen’s) new 3 Strikes legislation gets on the ballot, maybe it won’t even be 25 years.

    MOG (08c813)

  4. 25 to life for cocaine possesion seems more than a little bit harsh. Like, way over the top. Was there more to it than what so far meets the uninformed eye?

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  5. Patterico, what you think of Breyer’s argument that the Supreme Court standard is unenforceable? Seemed pretty convincing to me. Breyer wants to get rid of peremptory challenges altogether. I would go back to the old rule and allow a limited number (say 2 per side) of challenges for any reason.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  6. Black Jack, I suspect this is the three strikes law in action.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  7. Yes, his 2 prior convictions for robbery and rape do explain his 25 to life sentence. Thanks.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  8. Patterico, I read the article this morning. I knew nothing about this case, only what was contained in today’s article.

    It made NO sense to me… that the prosecutor would pre-empt because the women were “too tolerant of this type of case”… in fact, I read that part of the article TWICE trying to figure it out, thinking I missed something.

    Silly me, I DID miss something. Problem was Savage didn’t INCLUDE it. Thank you for doing so.

    Susan (0a982a)

  9. Mikekoshi says: “The prospect of having Hugh Hewitt running around loose in public without a muzzle should make any intelligent person nervous

    Whoa sluggo! Hugh Hewitt would make you nervous (with the implication that you are intelligent?!?!) but the likes of a Chris Matthews, a Katie Couric, a Kenneth Olberman, etc., etc. doesn’t make you nervous?!?!…:lol:

    russ (2d4887)

  10. Mikekoshi says: “The prospect of having Hugh Hewitt running around loose in public without a muzzle should make any intelligent person nervous”

    I doubt Miko has ever listened to the guy!

    Hewitt is just a nice man. You might disagree with his politics, but he is never not nice.

    Bostonian (734d21)

  11. Bostonian says: “Hewitt is just a nice man. You might disagree with his politics, but he is never not nice.”

    Missed the interview with CNN’s Ed Henry, then?

    Suggest you read “Hewitt VS CNN’s Ed Henry – Civility Lost” from a righty blogger on Hugh’s favored links:

    “For his part, Ed Henry politely stayed on what appeared to be a lengthened segment with cross-hairs neatly pinned betwixt the eyes, and made it clear that he needed to and wanted to leave for other engagements…the show spiraled very quickly into what looked to me like an ambush and desperation.”

    http://selectedpete.blogspot.com/2006/01/hewitt-vs-cnns-ed-henry-civility-lost.html

    steve (1c66cc)

  12. My experience was that the defense strikes a similar number of non-whites as the prosecution. In a bigger city, its not that BIG a problem. In a smaller city, I can see that Batson is a bigger issue.

    slickdpdx (fbbb81)

  13. This reporting is a classic example why people think the system is automatically biased against minorities.

    sharon (fecb65)

  14. Mikekoshi, just from your comment about Hewitt I deduce you wear a tinfoil hat and can’t understand why Bush beats you at every turn.

    I know Hugh for a long time. I’m farther to the right of him. Hugh is always grounded when it comes to discussing the law and Constitution.

    Hugh does get flakey when we start discussing the Cleveland Browns.

    PCD (723fb3)

  15. Er – Couldn’t help but hear my name uttered in vain ;0) Yes – I was critical of Hugh’s interview with Henry because it seemed to drift off topic a bit (referring to Henry’s own work as opposed to his personal vote record and his opinion of other shows), and also because I only read the transcript.

    Hugh surprised me by posting the critical link and then emailing me himself in detail providing context and background. Context and background….hmmm Those things are so often missing from the work done in LA and NY these days. Anyway – an update to my critique is posted with a very poignant quote from Hewitt’s email at http://www.selectedpete.com

    It references the fact that Hugh remains one of the few civil and consistently well-mannered people in politics today. Dennis Prager is another. People like Franken and Rhodes absolutely pale next to these guys.

    Selected Pete (cb0612)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0769 secs.