Excluding Black Jurors in Curtis Flowers Case Violated Constitution, Supreme Court Rules

[JANFU]

Excluding Black Jurors in Curtis Flowers Case Violated Constitution, Supreme Court Rules - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — A white Mississippi prosecutor violated the Constitution by excluding black jurors from the sixth trial of Curtis Flowers, a black man who was convicted of murdering four people in 1996 in a furniture store, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for a seven-justice majority, said the prosecutor, Doug Evans, had run afoul of the court’s 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky.

If a small portion of this is true, why is he still a Prosecutor. With a few more years to go in his term

Note - This is not about the crime, it is about the law.

 

[trouble13]

Excluding Black Jurors in Curtis Flowers Case Violated Constitution, Supreme Court Rules - The New York Times



If a small portion of this is true, why is he still a Prosecutor. With a few more years to go in his term

Note - This is not about the crime, it is about the law.

I cant open the link but i sm curious how black jurors were excluded?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[WillyPete]

I cant open the link but i sm curious how black jurors were excluded?

During the jury selection process, both sides sometimes get a number of free juror exclusions, where they don't have to give a reason not to have them on the jury, and both sides will try to sculpt the jury to benefit their case. It's apparently a whole sub-industry in trials, with experts in jury selection being in high demand.

Apart from that, they can seek to discover other reason to throw them off the jury, maybe by having a private investigator follow them to see if they break any of the rules the judge places upon them, like not talking to others about the case or watching TV reports on it, etc. Could be as simple as having someone approach them directly and start a conversation about the case, see how far they'll go.

If they can kick a couple "problem" jurors out, their odds improve. It's shady, but generally legal.

In this case I'd guess the prosecutor was convinced of guilt, and after 6 trials was probably pretty sick of the "stupid" jury "refusing" to convict.

 

[Hatuey]

I cant open the link but i sm curious how black jurors were excluded?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

In Mr. Flowers’s first four trials, held between 1997 and 2007, Mr. Evans used all 36 of his peremptory challenges to strike black potential jurors. Three of those trials ended in convictions reversed on appeal, and one in a mistrial.

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Excluding Black Jurors in Curtis Flowers Case Violated Constitution, Supreme Court Rules - The New York Times



If a small portion of this is true, why is he still a Prosecutor. With a few more years to go in his term

Note - This is not about the crime, it is about the law.

Supreme Court sides with Mississippi death row inmate in jury discrimination case

 

[Crystal]

He murdered four people in a furniture Store! Now he gets a seventh trial.

 

[Hatuey]

He murdered four people in a furniture Store! Now he gets a seventh trial.

This is the 6th time he's beaten his convictions through appeals and such. I can't comment on his status of guilt but I can say he seems to have a knack for showing people that his accusers got it wrong.

Commendable.

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

 

[Crystal]

This is the 6th time he's beaten his convictions through appeals and such. I can't comment on his status of guilt but I can say he seems to have a knack for showing people that his accusers got it wrong.

Commendable.

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

Funny all the juries found the same thing! Huh?

 

[Hatuey]

Funny all the juries found the same thing! Huh?

That can happen when a jury is crafted to eliminate folks who wouldn't believe he is guilty. I mean, if you include people who don't understand DNA or finger prints, you might get a conviction. Happened to the Innocent 5. Convicted, but evidence later showed they were innocent. We know juries can get it wrong because someone speaks nicely to them and the evidence is a bunch of liberal bioevolutionary hogwash.

Ya know?

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

 

[Crystal]

That can happen when a jury is crafted to eliminate folks who wouldn't believe he is guilty. I mean, if you include people who don't understand DNA or finger prints, you might get a conviction. Happened to the Innocent 5. Convicted, but evidence later showed they were innocent. We know juries can get it wrong because someone speaks nicely to them and the evidence is a bunch of liberal bioevolutionary hogwash.

Ya know?

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

Six in a row?

 

[ludin]

Six in a row?

all of which has been overturned on appeal which means that there were major
mistakes being done by someone.

now we have huge prosecutorial misconduct possibly.

the fact is that the man is allowed to be tried by a jury of his peers.

by constantly eliminating any and all black people from the jury
this means that he can't get a fair trial.

and he hasn't been convicted at all as in all cases the convictions have been overturned.

however given this SCOTUS ruling i agree with it and it is consistent with the protections of the constitution
of a fair trial and trial by jury of his peers.

 

[Crystal]

all of which has been overturned on appeal which means that there were major
mistakes being done by someone.

now we have huge prosecutorial misconduct possibly.

the fact is that the man is allowed to be tried by a jury of his peers.

by constantly eliminating any and all black people from the jury
this means that he can't get a fair trial.

and he hasn't been convicted at all as in all cases the convictions have been overturned.

however given this SCOTUS ruling i agree with it and it is consistent with the protections of the constitution
of a fair trial and trial by jury of his peers.

It says black jurors were excluded from the sixth trial. What about the first five?

 

[ludin]

It says black jurors were excluded from the sixth trial. What about the first five?

1st trial: It held that evidence presented by the state was prejudicial because it went beyond that necessary to prove the murder of Tardy alone. In addition, the prosecutor was held to have asked questions "not in good faith" and "without basis in fact.

2nd trial: The trial was moved to Harrison County due to the difficulties in getting a fair jury in Montgomery County. Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death. This verdict was overturned on appeal by the Mississippi Supreme Court, which held that the court had improperly allowed evidence regarding crimes not on trial to be admitted, and that other errors were made.

3rd trial: This verdict was overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court as it held that the state's peremptory challenges in jury selection were racially motivated and thus unconstitutional. During the selection process, the state challenged African-American jurors with its first seven strikes, which resulted in a Batson challenge by the defense. Following its submission of non-racial grounds for its challenges, the state used all of its five remaining challenges to strike African-American jurors. The state also used its three alternate juror strikes on African Americans. The final jury consisted of two African-Americans and ten whites. (The county is 45% African-American.)

4th trial: However, the state did exhaust its peremptory challenges early in jury selection and the resulting jury had 2 African-Americans on it.[14] The fourth trial ended in a mistrial, as the jury was split 7–5 in favor of conviction;

5th trial: concluded in 2008 in a mistrial. James Bibbs, an African-American, was the sole juror opposed to conviction. The trial judge accused him of perjury for allegedly trying to taint the jury pool by suggesting to other jurors that evidence was planted against Flowers.[17] The prosecution dropped the charges against Bibbs from lack of evidence.[18] A second juror, an alternate, was charged with perjury for lying during jury selection when she said she did not know Flowers

6th trial: was similar to the 3rd trial and just thrown out by the SCOTUS.

 

[JANFU]

I cant open the link but i sm curious how black jurors were excluded?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Clear your cache. It is quite apparent. Let me know if you can / cannot open after that. Will send a PM later or in the morning

 

[Deuce]

Six in a row?

Six trials of Donald Trump occur. All six have juries consisting entirely of people who voted for Hillary Clinton. The prosecutor deliberately excluded any and all Trump voters in every case.

You gonna accept the verdict without question?

 

[Crystal]

Six trials of Donald Trump occur. All six have juries consisting entirely of people who voted for Hillary Clinton. The prosecutor deliberately excluded any and all Trump voters in every case.

You gonna accept the verdict without question?

I have no idea why you drug Trump into this! He lives in your head I guess.

 

[Crystal]

1st trial: It held that evidence presented by the state was prejudicial because it went beyond that necessary to prove the murder of Tardy alone. In addition, the prosecutor was held to have asked questions "not in good faith" and "without basis in fact.

2nd trial: The trial was moved to Harrison County due to the difficulties in getting a fair jury in Montgomery County. Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death. This verdict was overturned on appeal by the Mississippi Supreme Court, which held that the court had improperly allowed evidence regarding crimes not on trial to be admitted, and that other errors were made.

3rd trial: This verdict was overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court as it held that the state's peremptory challenges in jury selection were racially motivated and thus unconstitutional. During the selection process, the state challenged African-American jurors with its first seven strikes, which resulted in a Batson challenge by the defense. Following its submission of non-racial grounds for its challenges, the state used all of its five remaining challenges to strike African-American jurors. The state also used its three alternate juror strikes on African Americans. The final jury consisted of two African-Americans and ten whites. (The county is 45% African-American.)

4th trial: However, the state did exhaust its peremptory challenges early in jury selection and the resulting jury had 2 African-Americans on it.[14] The fourth trial ended in a mistrial, as the jury was split 7–5 in favor of conviction;

5th trial: concluded in 2008 in a mistrial. James Bibbs, an African-American, was the sole juror opposed to conviction. The trial judge accused him of perjury for allegedly trying to taint the jury pool by suggesting to other jurors that evidence was planted against Flowers.[17] The prosecution dropped the charges against Bibbs from lack of evidence.[18] A second juror, an alternate, was charged with perjury for lying during jury selection when she said she did not know Flowers

6th trial: was similar to the 3rd trial and just thrown out by the SCOTUS.

So, the best I can gather this is a race based thing.

 

[ludin]

So, the best I can gather this is a race based thing.

well clearly there is more going on than just that.
the prosecutor has screwed this trial up more than 1 time as well.

the other issue is that this man has yet to get a fair trial by a jury of his peers.
the state is violating his constitutional rights.

 

[WillyPete]

Hate this sort of tinkering. If they had just given him a straight trial, he'd likely have been convicted, and if the jury did set him loose, he'd've probably gotten into more trouble by now (unless he's actually innocent.)

Guy's lawyer must be a junkyard dog though. I should get his number. For a friend.

 

[Crystal]

well clearly there is more going on than just that.
the prosecutor has screwed this trial up more than 1 time as well.

the other issue is that this man has yet to get a fair trial by a jury of his peers.
the state is violating his constitutional rights.

By peers you mean same race? So if a Chinese person commits a murder his jury must have a quota of Chinese? Whites white? Latino Latino? This could get interesting.

 

[calamity]

Excluding Black Jurors in Curtis Flowers Case Violated Constitution, Supreme Court Rules - The New York Times



If a small portion of this is true, why is he still a Prosecutor. With a few more years to go in his term

Note - This is not about the crime, it is about the law.

One word to answer your question: Mississippi.

 

[pamak]

1st trial: It held that evidence presented by the state was prejudicial because it went beyond that necessary to prove the murder of Tardy alone. In addition, the prosecutor was held to have asked questions "not in good faith" and "without basis in fact.

2nd trial: The trial was moved to Harrison County due to the difficulties in getting a fair jury in Montgomery County. Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death. This verdict was overturned on appeal by the Mississippi Supreme Court, which held that the court had improperly allowed evidence regarding crimes not on trial to be admitted, and that other errors were made.

3rd trial: This verdict was overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court as it held that the state's peremptory challenges in jury selection were racially motivated and thus unconstitutional. During the selection process, the state challenged African-American jurors with its first seven strikes, which resulted in a Batson challenge by the defense. Following its submission of non-racial grounds for its challenges, the state used all of its five remaining challenges to strike African-American jurors. The state also used its three alternate juror strikes on African Americans. The final jury consisted of two African-Americans and ten whites. (The county is 45% African-American.)

4th trial: However, the state did exhaust its peremptory challenges early in jury selection and the resulting jury had 2 African-Americans on it.[14] The fourth trial ended in a mistrial, as the jury was split 7–5 in favor of conviction;

5th trial: concluded in 2008 in a mistrial. James Bibbs, an African-American, was the sole juror opposed to conviction. The trial judge accused him of perjury for allegedly trying to taint the jury pool by suggesting to other jurors that evidence was planted against Flowers.[17] The prosecution dropped the charges against Bibbs from lack of evidence.[18] A second juror, an alternate, was charged with perjury for lying during jury selection when she said she did not know Flowers

6th trial: was similar to the 3rd trial and just thrown out by the SCOTUS.

It is even worse based on the SCOTUS document (first paragraphs)

APM Reports Documents



To add to your comments above...

In the first two trials, the State used its peremptory strikes on all of the qualified black jurors!

At the third trial, the state again exercised its 15 peremptory strikes- all against black prospective jurors.

At the fourth trial, the state again exercised its 11 peremptory strikes- all against black prospective jurors.

At the fifth trial there is no available racial information about the prospective jurors ..:lamo

The sixth trial ended up in the SCOTUS

So, the broad picture shows repeated attempts in all trials to exclude as many black jurors as they could. Five times the supreme court in the state found different reasons to reverse opinions. This did not happen with the 6th trial which eventually came to the Supreme Court of the United States...

 

[danarhea]

By peers you mean same race? So if a Chinese person commits a murder his jury must have a quota of Chinese? Whites white? Latino Latino? This could get interesting.

Doesn't work like that. If a Chinese person commits a murder, a prosecutor is not allowed to strike jurors only because they are Chinese. That amounts to racism, and SCOTUS would throw that out too.

 

[Crystal]

Doesn't work like that. If a Chinese person commits a murder, a prosecutor is not allowed to strike jurors only because they are Chinese. That amounts to racism, and SCOTUS would throw that out too.

So if Chinese are in the jury pool they must be selected? Whites white and Latino Latino?

 

[pamak]

So if Chinese are in the jury pool they must be selected? Whites white and Latino Latino?

A jury should broadly reflect the demographics of a community.