The original jury pool for Timothy Foster 's 1987 murder trial in Rome, Ga., included 10 blacks among 95 potential jurors. During the selection process, prosecutors highlighted their names, circled the word "black" on their questionnaires and added handy notations such as "B#1" and "B#2."
After more than half the pool was excused for specific reasons, each side was allowed to make a set number of additional strikes — as long as it wasn't because of race or gender. On a sheet they labeled "definite NO's," prosecutors listed the five remaining black prospects on top, and they ranked them in case "it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors."
Foster, who is black, was swiftly convicted of murdering an elderly white woman. At sentencing, the prosecutor urged the all-white jury to impose death in order to "deter other people out there in the projects" — where 90% of the residents were black.
In a case that would appear to have multiple smoking guns, Foster's conviction and death sentence will go on trial Monday at the Supreme Court — and so, too, the process by which judges consider claims of racial discrimination in jury selection.
The case is important on two levels. If the justices find that Foster's constitutional rights were violated and instruct that he be given a new trial, the ruling could impact the way prosecutors, defense attorneys and trial judges handle jury selection in the future. And because Foster received a death sentence, it could fuel concerns previously voiced by two justices that the death penalty itself may be unconstitutional — in this case because of racial bias.
And for all of you UM haters out there, I give you this to enjoy this Monday morning:
When I was a young ASA in Janet Reno's office it was explained to me in very clear terms that a prosecutor is not there to win the case, but to be an advocate of the people who demand that justice be done in every case.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I see very few prosecutors who actually think or act that way. It is all about the W. And you know who you are.
Sad to see that the Canes have gotten to the point where the highlight of the season is a game where they needed a last-second miracle play and really bad officiating to beat Duke. Duke!
ReplyDeleteDon't know if your comment is accurate. Batson should have worked in this case. Judge erred by accepting clearly pretextual justifications.
ReplyDeleteNo one really hates UM. UM has been irrelevant for a long time. I think people are just saying the ending was unfair because his knee was down when he threw the lateral and UM clipped at least 3 times. But if you want to celebrate this "win," go ahead.
ReplyDelete8:45 -
ReplyDeletecheck the case law, NOTHING is clearly pretextual
Problem is the judges, not the law.
ReplyDeleteWaive jury?
ReplyDeleteWaive any voir dire and jury questioning? Totally random. 95 potential jurors; names go in a hat, get pulled out - that's your jury. Take the good and the bad.
ReplyDelete