Patterico's Pontifications

11/4/2021

Constitutional Vanguard: No, the Judge in the Arbery Murder Trial Did Not Say There Was “Intentional Discrimination” in the Selection of the Jury

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:05 pm



Just correcting some misinformation going on tonight.

So that’s the process. Note that a judge might move the process on to Stage Two if the court initially finds even an “inference” of purposeful discrimination . . . and yet, the judge might ultimately make a finding that the party exercising the peremptory challenge(s) did not engage in purposeful discrimination.

And that, my friends, is what happened here. Ultimately, the court found no discrimination.

Exactly the opposite of what was reported by CNN, and CBS, and NBC. And Oliver Willis!

Access the full post here. This one’s free! Subscribe here.

7 Responses to “Constitutional Vanguard: No, the Judge in the Arbery Murder Trial Did Not Say There Was “Intentional Discrimination” in the Selection of the Jury”

  1. I read the full post. Quite educational.

    This same phenomenon occurs with immigration-related stories, but I don’t have the ambition to slice and dice them like you do. In fact, I often avoid immigration stories because, as a former immigration officer, they make my blood boil.

    norcal (b9a35f) — 11/4/2021 @ 10:58 pm

  2. Good explainer, thank you. Have you seen what the reported reasons were? I’ve looked and haven’t found that.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 11/5/2021 @ 5:34 am

  3. Not to be outdone, the defense complained that there were not enough Bubbas and Joe Six-packs in the jury pool.

    nk (1d9030) — 11/5/2021 @ 5:40 am

  4. Good stuff. It’s a classic case of how social media spreads misinformation.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 11/5/2021 @ 5:56 am

  5. This is the mainstream media. And Rashomon is par for the course for them as well. If any of them ever get a story right, it’s by accident

    nk (1d9030) — 11/5/2021 @ 6:24 am

  6. Since this is a extremely big issue in black oriented media, it is quite logical that a very high percentage of blacks would have, not only formed, but asserted, a strong opinion about the case, in many cases quite biased (asserting that it was premeditated murder of a man they knew to be innocent of doing anything wrong and no two ways about it or that the attackers were hopelessly biased and that cannot be tolerated)

    Also, the defendant is entitled to a jury, of his peers, not the victim’s peers. The Supreme Court has ruled, though, that this can’t operate in such a way as to create impunity for crimes, but they gave facially valid reasons and there’s every reason to believe those facially valid reasons are true. And the white people are not impossibly biased or racist – they even abolished the Glynn County police department, in part because of this, or tried to (a judge ruled it violated the Georgia constitution)..

    https://www.npr.org/2021/06/18/1008129920/ahmaud-arbery-glynn-county-police-chief-battiste

    Battiste’s hiring comes after a turbulent year for the Glynn County Police Department. The agency was widely criticized for making no arrests after Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, was chased and fatally shot by three white men who spotted him running in their neighborhood on Feb. 23, 2020. Charges came more than two months later after the Georgia Bureau of Investigation took over.

    Days after Arbery’s killing, Glynn County Police Chief John Powell was indicted on unrelated malfeasance charges in what prosecutors called an illegal effort to cover up a narcotics officer’s affair with a confidential informant. He was placed on leave until the county fired him in January.

    The problems prompted Georgia lawmakers to approve a measure giving voters a chance to abolish the Glynn County police agency and hand its powers to the elected county sheriff. A judge declared the referendum unconstitutional before the 2020 elections.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/5/2021 @ 7:57 am

  7. There is both a Glynn Co. Police Department AND a Glynn Co. Sheriff’s Dept? Seems duplicative (yes an Illinoisan is pot-kettling with this) unless the former is a consolidated force with City of Brunswick.

    urbanleftbehind (17ee0f) — 11/5/2021 @ 2:08 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0823 secs.