South Carolina Cop Charged with Murder

[IrishinSyria]

Is there anyway to find out what the peremptory challenges were? Also is there any such thing as a reverse Batson challenge?

e. there is! The defense got seven minorities dropped from the pool and the prosecution dropped their challenge because reasons???

The jury held up after prosecutors dropped a legal challenge, alleging the defense’s dismissal of seven minorities from the jury pool was racially motivated.

Jury in Michael Slager murder trial nearly all white; judge rejects defense effort to move trial | News | postandcourier.com

e. apparently 47% of the residents in the jx are black. You're absolutely right that race SHOULDN'T matter but both as a matter of fact and law it does.

e2. Cack beat me to the punch on the 47% thing

 

[drayer54]

But it does matter. Especially in North Charleston/Hanahan where police tactics have a long history of severe treatment to blacks. I don't know the personality makeup of the jurors so I can't comment there but to have 11 white jurors and 1 black juror is going to be perceived as not representative of the community. I can tell you that from living here. North Charleston is 47% low income blacks and 37% low to mid income whites. While this statement from The Charleston NAACP is no where near the attitude of BLM it is a concern
Charleston NAACP officials criticize majority white jury on Michael Slager trial | News | postandcourier.com

Is it not racist to assume to that a white juror is incapable of determining justice fairly because of his or her skin tone?

If not, it is the definition of prejudice. Citing Michael Brown or Trayvon where the jury was correct, but the victim is black doesn't mean anything. They didn't mention the OJ trial for some reason as a reference in racially divisive juries either?

 

[IrishLax]

But it does matter. Especially in North Charleston/Hanahan where police tactics have a long history of severe treatment to blacks. I don't know the personality makeup of the jurors so I can't comment there but to have 11 white jurors and 1 black juror is going to be perceived as not representative of the community. I can tell you that from living here. North Charleston is 47% low income blacks and 37% low to mid income whites. While this statement from The Charleston NAACP is no where near the attitude of BLM it is a concern
Charleston NAACP officials criticize majority white jury on Michael Slager trial | News | postandcourier.com

Dude, you and the NAACP are doing exactly what the left criticized Trump for when he said that the Mexican-American judge couldn't be fair in presiding over his trial. Think about that for a second.

 

[Cackalacky]

Dude, you and the NAACP are doing exactly what the left criticized Trump for when he said that the Mexican-American judge couldn't be fair in presiding over his trial. Think about that for a second.

Thinking about it for more than a second I definitely disagree. A judge who is highly skilled in the art of law and argumentation is in a much different position that 12 people picked on purely special circumstances who have limited to no knowledge of laws or even the definition of terminology used to frame the trial. I am not saying they are not impartial. I am not saying they can't reach an reasonable conclusion...but well they did not in this case. One juror refused to even entertain murder one or manslaughter because opinions!. But yeah. A jury versus a judge are not even close to equivalent. I would hope I have a bit more creditability than that.

I should also add that it is the perception here..... not mine.

 

[IrishinSyria]

On race and jury selection:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/42/case.html

Batson v Kentucky

Object Anyway - Radiolab Presents: More Perfect - WNYC < This is a really good podcast. And if you only take away one thing from this post it should be this.

The argument isn't that white jurors can't be fair. The argument is that lawyers shouldn't be able to use racial stereotypes to craft a (presumptively) favorable jury.

There's a long history of this in our country- up until the 80s it was common practice for prosecutors to use "peremptory challenges" to strike black juries from the juror pool without cause. That was changed in a case called Batson, which held that a prosecutor could not strike a juror because of their race but instead needed to offer a nondiscriminatory reason. This was later extended to defense lawyers in McCollum.

The problem, as the RadioLab piece explains, is that all you need is a flimsy excuse to hide racial prejudice in selection- the defense in this case managed to strike 7 black jurors and only let 1 on. Think that's a coincidence?

There's a few key differences between race and jurors and race and a judge, but the major one is that the parties have a lot of discretion to shape the jury. This is a description of the process in South Carolina: SC Judicial Department

The other major difference is that you're not questioning the integrity of any one individual but the composition of the pool. A jury is supposed to be representative of its community. 11 white juries and 1 black one is not representative of the community.

tl;dr: Batson exists for a reason, listen to the podcast, the distinction between "jury" and "juror" matters here.

 

[Cackalacky]

On race and jury selection:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/42/case.html

Batson v Kentucky

Object Anyway - Radiolab Presents: More Perfect - WNYC < This is a really good podcast. And if you only take away one thing from this post it should be this.

The argument isn't that white jurors can't be fair. The argument is that lawyers shouldn't be able to use racial stereotypes to craft a (presumptively) favorable jury.

There's a long history of this in our country- up until the 80s it was common practice for prosecutors to use "peremptory challenges" to strike black juries from the juror pool without cause. That was changed in a case called Batson, which held that a prosecutor could not strike a juror because of their race but instead needed to offer a nondiscriminatory reason. This was later extended to defense lawyers in McCollum.

The problem, as the RadioLab piece explains, is that all you need is a flimsy excuse to hide racial prejudice in selection- the defense managed to strike 7 black jurors and only let 1 on. Think that's a coincidence?

There's a few key differences between race and jurors and race and a judge, but the major one is that the parties have a lot of discretion to shape the jury. This is a description of the process in South Carolina: SC Judicial Department

The other major difference is that you're not questioning the integrity of any one individual but the composition of the pool. A jury is supposed to be representative of its community. 11 white juries and 1 black one is not representative of the community.

Thank you for this. I was typing understanding this would be relatively common knowledge. And I also understand that here on IE it is widely assumed that the struggle is over and any challenge to that is lumped in with the BLM group. I can tell you for certain that after the nine dead in Emmanuel, burned churches and the Walter Scott case, and mine and my wife's involvement in Project Illumination it is quite clear there are very real issues at hand here.

 

[IrishLax]

Thinking about it for more than a second I definitely disagree. A judge who is highly skilled in the art of law and argumentation is in a much different position that 12 people picked on purely special circumstances who have limited to no knowledge of laws or even the definition of terminology used to frame the trial. I am not saying they are not impartial. I am not saying they can't reach an reasonable conclusion...but well they did not in this case. One juror refused to even entertain murder one or manslaughter because opinions!. But yeah. A jury versus a judge are not even close to equivalent. I would hope I have a bit more creditability than that.

I should also add that it is the perception here..... not mine.

My point is more that when you start judging a person's capability or credibility on skin color it's a very slippery slope. Obviously, a judge and a jury have different functions and different qualifications. Unless I missed it, no one knows how this jury came to be from the jury pool and whether it was just sheer random chance to get a jury with that makeup. Obviously one person got through who had no business being on a jury. That's a failing in the screening process; not one of skin color.

Progressive writers had the same complaint in the Daniel Holtzclaw trial recently and were "shocked" when the all white jury returned a guilty verdict. Pre-judging someone's capabilities and bias based strictly on skin color is racism. I read the NAACP link and there entire premise is "can't trust white people"... they admit there's nothing legally amiss but rather:

We can't ignore the glaring and outrageous fact that those who killed Emmett Till, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were acquitted by either all white or majority white juries or grand juries.

That's right... they're comparing Emmett Till to the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin cases where there was rather obvious and rationale reasons why the accused was not convicted. That line of thinking should give you pause.

 

[IrishLax]

On race and jury selection:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/42/case.html

Batson v Kentucky

Object Anyway - Radiolab Presents: More Perfect - WNYC < This is a really good podcast. And if you only take away one thing from this post it should be this.

The argument isn't that white jurors can't be fair. The argument is that lawyers shouldn't be able to use racial stereotypes to craft a (presumptively) favorable jury.

Yes, and based on everything I've heard there's no evidence that's what happened.

So the argument is... as you guys and the NAACP are presenting it... that having a majority white jury is a problem even if selected correctly by the letter of the law..

 

[Cackalacky]

My point is more that when you start judging a person's capability or credibility on skin color it's a very slippery slope. Obviously, a judge and a jury have different functions and different qualifications. Unless I missed it, no one knows how this jury came to be from the jury pool and whether it was just sheer random chance to get a jury with that makeup. Obviously one person got through who had no business being on a jury. That's a failing in the screening process; not one of skin color.

Progressive writers had the same complaint in the Daniel Holtzclaw trial recently and were "shocked" when the all white jury returned a guilty verdict. Pre-judging someone's capabilities and bias based strictly on skin color is racism. I read the NAACP link and there entire premise is "can't trust white people"... they admit there's nothing legally amiss but rather:

That's right... they're comparing Emmett Till to the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin cases where there was rather obvious and rationale reasons why the accused was not convicted. That line of thinking should give you pause.

As to your first paragraph that is what I am saying as well as IrishinSyria. But the jury is supposed to reflect the community. And IrishinSyria posted several points with supporting evidence on how this jury was selected resulting in a culturally biased jury if not racial biased.

As to your other points, again I obviously can't explain it well enough to matter on this board but within the context of a north a charleston Police Departments history with the black community, the recent killings and church burnings and that me and my wife were involved in The Illumination Project, that opinion that they can't trust white people is within the bounds of reason and after sitting in multiple round table discussions as a part of the Illumination Project, I am sympathetic.

And the NAACP are very much capable and of tying this scenario to many black killings by police officers based on the exchanges I partook in in the round tables. I can assure you that the North charleston plice department has a very sordid history from their view. These people aren't just making shit up.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Yes, and based on everything I've heard there's no evidence that's what happened.

So the argument is... as you guys and the NAACP are presenting it... that having a majority white jury is a problem even if selected correctly by the letter of the law..

I mean if you're asking if I think there's a problem with the letter of the law the answer is yes and I'd encourage you to listen to the podcast for why.

I think when you have a jury composed of 11 white jurors and 1 black juror and the defense struck 7 black jurors during voir dire and the community the jury is supposed to represent is 47% black there's at least a strong argument that something is up.

Here's a guide written in 2010 for avoiding Batson issues: The Shrinking Strike Zone: Avoiding Problems During Jury Selection in the Age of Batson

It's basically a how-to on removing jurors for their race without saying that's what you're doing. This is common practice across the country.

 

[Cackalacky]

I mean if you're asking if I think there's a problem with the letter of the law the answer is yes and I'd encourage you to listen to the podcast for why.

I think when you have a jury composed of 11 white jurors and 1 black juror and the defense struck 7 black jurors during voir dire and the community the jury is supposed to represent is 47% black there's at least a strong argument that something is up.

Here's a guide written in 2010 for avoiding Batson issues: The Shrinking Strike Zone: Avoiding Problems During Jury Selection in the Age of Batson

It's basically a how-to on removing jurors for their race without saying that's what you're doing. This is common practice across the country.

Agree fully. That is one of the things that came up during Illumination Project While completely legal, jury selection is subject to biases based on the whims of the prosecution and defense. In this instance the NAACP is upset the prosecution did not fight harder for a more representative panel. Which I believe you mentioned that 7 black jurors were removed and the prosecution did not challenge. The national media won't r port that and people here on IE certainly won't know that. Also The defense lawyer (again) is a notorious local douchebag.

 

[ACamp1900]

So,... do we know anything at all about these jurors other than they were "White" ??

 

[IrishinSyria]

Sp,... do we know anything at all about these jurors other than they were "White" ??

No, and for the record I'm not saying this jury was racist or anything like that. Just that the composition and the number of strikes used by the defense on black jurors raises some serious red flags.

 

[Cackalacky]

So,... do we know anything at all about these jurors other than they were "White" ??

Jury in Michael Slager murder trial nearly all white; judge rejects defense effort to move trial | News | postandcourier.com. No other than this. This is the most comprehensive explanation of the jury process I am privy to. It is more proceedings than anything else

 

[kmoose]

I think when you have a jury composed of 11 white jurors and 1 black juror and the defense struck 7 black jurors during voir dire and the community the jury is supposed to represent is 47% black there's at least a strong argument that something is up.

The jury is supposed to be a jury of the defendant's peers. "Peer" can mean a lot of different things: race; economic class, education, etc. I'm not a lawyer, but I have never heard of any requirement for a jury to reflect the demographics of the local community.

 

[Cackalacky]

This image was run on the Today show during the segment talking about the mistrial. I can assure that this did not occur in Charleston. It seems as if it was the Baltimore protests. They are using this image to frame their presentstion and is in no way accurate as to what is going on here.

 

[phgreek]

On race and jury selection:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/42/case.html

Batson v Kentucky

Object Anyway - Radiolab Presents: More Perfect - WNYC < This is a really good podcast. And if you only take away one thing from this post it should be this.

The argument isn't that white jurors can't be fair. The argument is that lawyers shouldn't be able to use racial stereotypes to craft a (presumptively) favorable jury.

There's a long history of this in our country- up until the 80s it was common practice for prosecutors to use "peremptory challenges" to strike black juries from the juror pool without cause. That was changed in a case called Batson, which held that a prosecutor could not strike a juror because of their race but instead needed to offer a nondiscriminatory reason. This was later extended to defense lawyers in McCollum.

The problem, as the RadioLab piece explains, is that all you need is a flimsy excuse to hide racial prejudice in selection- the defense in this case managed to strike 7 black jurors and only let 1 on. Think that's a coincidence?

There's a few key differences between race and jurors and race and a judge, but the major one is that the parties have a lot of discretion to shape the jury. This is a description of the process in South Carolina: SC Judicial Department

The other major difference is that you're not questioning the integrity of any one individual but the composition of the pool. A jury is supposed to be representative of its community. 11 white juries and 1 black one is not representative of the community.

tl;dr: Batson exists for a reason, listen to the podcast, the distinction between "jury" and "juror" matters here.

I mean, there are tons of structural "hurdles" which tilt the justice system in favor of the defense. The exclusionary rule comes to mind as an example.

I think judges are likely more lenient in evaluating defense concerns than those of prosecutors as relates to jury selection. If you have a defense attorney who sees things through the lens of race in order to get his or her client off...I think they will continue to get away with doing it. You could list numerous offenses, and the predjudicial approach of a defense attorney in jury selection...sometimes it is along gender lines, age lines, etc. If you want to throw all of that out, and make the counties do pre-selective interviews and create a jury lottery system...I think that would be AWESOME...but until then, I don't see this changing in a way that isn't hypocritical.

 

[phgreek]

The jury is supposed to be a jury of the defendant's peers. "Peer" can mean a lot of different things: race; economic class, education, etc. I'm not a lawyer, but I have never heard of any requirement for a jury to reflect the demographics of the local community.

...yup...and a defense attorney is given a ton of latitude to fill the box with "peers" in the most beneficial sense to the defendant...IMHO.

 

[irishff1014]

Dylann Roof laughed during church slaying confession to FBI | Fox News

This article is disturbing.

They should beat him to death. People like this don't get rights.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Dylann Roof laughed during church slaying confession to FBI | Fox News

This article is disturbing.

They should beat him to death. People like this don't get rights.

This guy's behavior and things he said during the interrogation and since are strange. I can't decide if he's just an evil asshole or a low intelligence nutjob. Definitely a weird guy with some strange reactions. Seems to know what he did, but doesn't fully grasp why it was wrong or how it affected others.

 

[Cackalacky]

This guy's behavior and things he said during the interrogation and since are strange. I can't decide if he's just an evil asshole or a low intelligence nutjob. Definitely a weird guy with some strange reactions. Seems to know what he did, but doesn't fully grasp why it was wrong or how it affected others.

He knows. He was found competent to stand trial. Then he fires his lawyers and decides he wants to defend himself. Now he wants his lawyers back.

 

[irishff1014]

They were saying on cbs news this morning that this dude had a handwritten list of 5 other possible churches to hit.