Give me a break. The prosecution certainly wouldn't object to an all-black jury of their choosing. They would probably wet their pants with excitement.
Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial
- Thread starter smartcooky
- Start date
Give me a break. The prosecution certainly wouldn't object to an all-black jury of their choosing. They would probably wet their pants with excitement.
... yes because both sides are equal. Typical troll argument.
"The black guy needed killing" isn't a valid alternative opinion.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Demographically, there needs to be at least four black jurors on the jury in order to reflect the nature of the community. That would be enough to prevent the whiteys from pulling a good ol' boy trick of letting the "lynchin' of the n-word" go unpunished.
Last edited:
All them evil crackers, out to get them porch monkeys, I tell you.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,685
That's what the evidence indicates. Even the DA is in on it.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
He probably didn't even know that the Georgia DA initially involved in this case has been indicted in relation to it
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/us/jackie-johnson-indicted-ahmaud-arbery.html
So yeah this cracker, Jackie Jones, may not have been out to get a black man, but she sure as hell did her best to make sure Peckerwood & Son weren't going to go down for murdering one!
Shows how little research he has done into the facts of the case (not that facts matter anyway, right Warp12?).
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
This is really shady. I watched the hearing challenging the removal of these jurors. It appears there was a pool of 48 jurors with 12 Black jurors. The racial make-up of the county is about 25%, so that is pretty consistent. There were 3 removed by the defense for cause. Of the remaining 9 the defense eliminated 8 with pre-emptive strikes.
The problems are the difficulty in proving discrimination, restrictions on the court, and the publicity and nature of this case. All of these jurors knew at least something about this case or had been affected by it in some way. All of the parties involved have talked to the press and we have seen surveillance video and even a video of the chase and killing itself. Potential jurors are going to have knowledge of the case and have certain opinions.
There is also the issue that his ties into other issues and Black Lives Matter with an unarmed Black man be killed by armed White men, including a former police officer. And the issue with the former office having worked in the DA's office and this getting swept under the rug. That means many of these Black jurors had participated in or supported things like the Run With Maud even or posted other things on social media supporting Ahmaud.
Another problems is that probably almost everything about this case is known and publicly available. Other than some small details, I don't expect any significant new or contradictory evidence to come out at trial. That means many jurors have already formed strong opinions. That gives the defense some reason to strike.
The judge said this is a prima facie case of discrimination and that he believed that the defense was not being genuine with their reasons for the strike. He talked about the limitations on the courts in Georgia and how some other states would allow the court to consider certain factors like which jurors were asked certain questions and how many questions and whether they were striking one juror even though another juror had said the same thing.
He gave the rule he has to follow, and it is basically that he cannot reset a juror if the defense provides at least one reasonably plausible excuse for the strike. In a case like this, probably every juror has that potential. That means the defense can discriminatorily strike while having plausible deniability.
Reading between the lines, the judge basically said he believed the defense was being discriminatory, but there was nothing he could do about it. He seemed rather displeased with his own ruling.
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
One thing I found odd was that at the hearing they talked about some questions they asked the jurors about citizen's arrest. Are they really going to try the citizen's arrest angle? There is no way this was a legal citizen's arrest. The self defense angle would at least have a chance. Arbery did turn and run at Travis, so maybe they can get a juror to buy that.
To me, putting this as a citizen's arrest makes it worse because the prosecution will explain what that is and what it is not and that this is not a legal citizen's arrest and is therefore false imprisonment, which they are charged with, and that would negate self defense and also mean felony murder. This seems like a chess move for the defense to introduce the concept rather than the law and sacrifice that in order to open an avenue to talking about how they were just trying to be good citizens protecting their neighborhood from someone who was known to be breaking the law trespassing and possibly the neighborhood thief. It seems like a bit of a risky move, but I don't think the defense has a lot of options.
To me, putting this as a citizen's arrest makes it worse because the prosecution will explain what that is and what it is not and that this is not a legal citizen's arrest and is therefore false imprisonment, which they are charged with, and that would negate self defense and also mean felony murder. This seems like a chess move for the defense to introduce the concept rather than the law and sacrifice that in order to open an avenue to talking about how they were just trying to be good citizens protecting their neighborhood from someone who was known to be breaking the law trespassing and possibly the neighborhood thief. It seems like a bit of a risky move, but I don't think the defense has a lot of options.
gabeygoat
Master Poster
I wonder if this should be moved to Trials and Errors forum now? Maybe starting with post 89?
plague311
Great minds think...
I made a post in the forum section about it. I am reporting it now to request a move.
Thermal
August Member
Can we title it The Last Mile or something?
plague311
Great minds think...
You can pitch it if you'd like....
Naturally, after weeks of not having anything that makes me leave my desk at work, I have to be on-site pretty much all morning. So I believe I'll miss all of the opening statements. Which is fine, I can watch them tonight over a few cocktails. I'm hoping the prosecution comes out strong, and the defense goes Derek Chauvin route and just throw **** at the wall to see what sticks.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Just spitballing, but this case doesn't seem nearly as contentious as the Rittenhouse multi-murder. I really, really doubt there's much possibility for acquittal.
Best case scenario is a couple holdouts resulting in mistrial. Then again, this case is big enough you'd expect they would just bring it again. The three killers are currently in jail and that would likely not change if a retrial is sought.
I guess the defenses best hope is to get mistrial after mistrial until the state gives up or offers some kind of plea deal, and that strikes me as very long odds. Given the intense public scrutiny on the open corruption of the previous DA, I think the current prosecutors are going to be very reluctant to offer any deal.
Best case scenario is a couple holdouts resulting in mistrial. Then again, this case is big enough you'd expect they would just bring it again. The three killers are currently in jail and that would likely not change if a retrial is sought.
I guess the defenses best hope is to get mistrial after mistrial until the state gives up or offers some kind of plea deal, and that strikes me as very long odds. Given the intense public scrutiny on the open corruption of the previous DA, I think the current prosecutors are going to be very reluctant to offer any deal.
Last edited:
Well my own issue with the prosecution or defense being involved in jury selection at all is well documented, but it seems I am alone in that.
I think it's related but slightly different. They are trying to make a final slap on the wrist or even less seem like a "fair compromise."
"Well hell we've compromised and put them on trial even though we didn't want to. Hell I guess if we must we'll make them pick up cans by the side of the road for a few weekends."
And that stupid "Fairness in an unfair situation" will play well to a lot of people, sadly.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I never really know what to expect in these cases. To my biased eyes, these people (and Rittenhouse) are obviously guilty.
Then again, we see time and time again there is a tremendous reluctance to hold people accountable for certain types of crimes in this country, and that just doesn't infect the criminal justice system, but the broader public that makes up the jury. I really can't trust my gut here at all, so I'm cautiously prepared to be disappointed.
Then again, we see time and time again there is a tremendous reluctance to hold people accountable for certain types of crimes in this country, and that just doesn't infect the criminal justice system, but the broader public that makes up the jury. I really can't trust my gut here at all, so I'm cautiously prepared to be disappointed.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
ISTM that, for anyone capable of doing the maths, this system appears deliberately designed to give the appearance of lack of racial bias while at the same time making it more or less inevitable that the majority ethnicity of the region is over-represented in any jury, and any and all minorities are under-represented. Given the history of the southern states of the union, I find it hard to dismiss out of hand the possibility that this inbuilt bias is intentional.
Dave
Yes but a thousand apologists will flood both this thread and the general discourse any second now, demanding a "civil debate" about how we can't prove that racism with the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability is really racism.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
The alternative theory, of course, is that nobody involved in the legal system of Georgia has even a rudimentary understanding of simple arithmetic. Systemic racism almost seems like a less embarrassing alternative.
Dave