I previously blogged about the fascinating panel decision here.
In the Brown case, the district court excused a juror who said that he was deliberating based on what "[t]he Holy Spirit told [him]," which was that Brown was not guilty on all counts. Judge Rosenbaum said it was appropriate to excuse the juror because the juror was not praying for guidance but was basing his decision on what was "told" to him by the Holy Spirit. Visiting Judge Conway joined Judge Rosenbaum.
Judge William Pryor wrote a lengthy dissent, arguing that jurors should be able to rely on their religious beliefs.
Now the case goes en banc. Here's what I said about the panel opinion at the time:
For what it's worth, I think both opinions get it wrong. I think an acquittal can be based on anything, including one's conscience. Convictions, on the other hand, cannot be based on anything except the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. So if God tells a juror to acquit, fine. It would be disqualifying, however, for a juror to convict based on some intuition and not the evidence. Jury nullification is permissible to acquit, but not to convict.
17 comments:
I look forward to the Pryor opinion which figures out how to affirm, while also finding error in the religious discrimination....
Now Pryor clerks, get to work and figure it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDNCkcC47eQ
Hey, that kind of looks like Judge P, doesn't it?
I am not in favor of acquittals. Fine em all guilty and let the lord sort em out. Not sure how our signals got crossed. I was clearly telling that block head the defendant was guilty.
Follow me on twitter @holyspiritguilt
I DO NOT want Trump to appoint RBG's replacement. But this bit about her dying wish being that Trump should not pick her replacement is bogus.
I believe she said it.
But being appointed for life doesn't mean you get to rule from the grave. If she wanted to ensure she had a say as to who appointed her replacement, she should have stepped down when the democrats had the White House and Senate. She had every right not to step down, and I do not blame her for staying on; she was great. But someone who respects the law as much as she did shouldn't rest their appeal on a dying wish, and the democrats - my party - shouldn't make that argument.
LOL libs dont know what to do...Pryor standing up for a criminal defendant!
For those of you confused about how judicial appointments work, there are no principles. Both parties have been going tit for tat for a while. It is about only 2 things: who is potus and who controls the Senate. The end. Dont feign outrage. Itd be exactly the same if dems had the White House and the Senate, but they dont. Elections have consequences. If you dont like then vote but dont whine about principles.
I agree with your view on jury nullification. I believe it is a jury's right. I would like to see juries instructed on it by the Court.
When juries nullify or acquit people for protest reasons, usually nothing can be done about it after the fact, because acquittals usually can't be appealed or undone.
However, jurors still take some perfunctory oath that they're going to deliberate and reach a verdict based on the evidence and testimony. We know lots of jurors don't care and return egregious verdicts for all sorts of improper reasons. If it's an acquittal, there's not much anybody can do about it even if they reveal a bunch of batshit crazy reasons after the verdict. And even when it's a conviction, getting a reversal based on juror misconduct is an uphill battle.
But if prospective jurors disclose beforehand that they're going to disregard the evidence and testimony and find a certain verdict because of ideological convictions or divine voices they hear in their head, then both state and defendant can disqualify the juror for that reason. If an actual or prospective juror says all defendants are guilty as sin otherwise they wouldn't be defendants in the first place, that's a valid reason to exclude him from the jury, right?
If an actual or prospective juror says he believes that all laws are racist capitalist oppression of the underclass and he's never going to vote to convict no matter what the evidence, one would think that's a valid reason for the prosecution to exclude him from the jury. But if you're saying that "an acquittal can be based on anything," then presumably the court should not be able to exclude that juror.
If it's a rape trial and a juror says he thinks rape laws are feminazi propaganda and he'll never vote to convict a man of rape no matter what the evidence? Or it's a trial of a white supremacist murderer and one of the jurors says he agrees that black people are racially inferior and he'll never vote to convict a white person for killing a black person no matter what the evidence? Would the court be obliged to let them all stay on the jury?
I get there are no religious tests and all, I am fine with that. But does anybody know anything about the sect that this nominee belongs to?
I think an acquittal can be based on anything, including one's conscience.
Somewhere Jim Crow-era civil rights activists are collectively rolling over in their graves.
917
Did your curiosity on this subject also mean you wondered what synagogue kagan attended?
If not, why not?
Think about it.
Do you hold animus towards some christians?
Should we do a deep dive into the religious views of democratic, muslim members of congress?
Should we exclude Muslim immigrants from syria where women are second class citizens (unless they repudiate the widespread views of their countrymen)?
We all know what is going on here. Some libs look down on religion (those who cling to the bible). It is so obvious. I think you know that. And privately, people like you admit your bias to the like minded.
Since this is an anonymous post, why not just admit it.
If Kagan was a follower of Meir Kahane, yes, I would have been concerned and opposed her. If a Mormon was a follower of Warren Jeffs advocating marriage of 12 year old children, I would oppose. If a Muslim is a follower of Imam Abdullah Khadra, I would oppose.
So yeah, I would like to know a little more about People of Praise, and just what beliefs the followers are expected to have and abide by.
Yes, we should be concerned about the beliefs of members of Congress, and if those beliefs include racist positions, we should oppose them. This happens all the time in what we call elections. The supreme court is different because it is for life and we have to rely upon the senators to vote....they should want this information.
If people are coming from Syria, they should be screened (as they are) to make sure they don't hold radical and violent positions. If immigrants want to come, we should make sure they don't have ties to violent gangs.
You guys always like to say that the constitution is not a suicide pact, why would you not want to learn a bit more about People of Praise (which I know nothing about) before putting somebody on the court for life? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
1250
Let me respond this way:
There is no predication for your fishing expedition.
Put another way: we have no reason to question kagans religious beliefs, same as we have no reason to question barretts.
Just drop it!
What you are saying makes no sense. Nobody is talking about questioning Catholicism. Just don't know anything about People of Praise. Do you? Isn't that a reason to learn a little bit about that group? What are you afraid of?
What you are saying makes no sense. Nobody is talking about questioning Islam. Just don't know anything about why Ilhan Omar wears a hijab. Do you? Isn't that a reason to learn a little bit about that? What are you afraid of?
Uh.....don't post angry.
Post a Comment