An accused Opa-locka drug dealer has won a new trial with an only-in-Miami argument: The jury pool contained too many people whose last names start with the letter ``G.’’ http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/3417343.htm
This insane ruling was made by Judge Adalberto Jordan. Note two interesting points:
– An accused drug-dealer’s trial was delayed.
– Judge Jordan’s name begins with “J,” as does “Jerk.”
MGibson and minty green --you need not respond to this OP. We don’t need your kind! 
An attorney once told me that, when selecting a jury, you should look to exclude people whose jobs begin with the letter “P”. Rationale: plumbers are all drunks, professors are too critical, policemen will never vote against another policeman, psychiatrists just analyze the lawyers…
You’re telling me in the history of jury trials there has never been a black juror with a last name beginning with a G? And the judge fell for it?
It’s worth pointing out that that a mistrial was declared before opening statements. In other words, Carter was not found guilty by the “G-contaminated” jury; he raised his objection first with the magistrate that oresided over jury selection and agtain with the judge before opening statements began; the judge agreed and dismissed the jury. So while it’s true he got a “re-trial”, it’s not as clear-cut a wrong as you might think. For all Carter knows, the G’s would have acquitted him!
the suggestion is that since, according to the link, 21 of the empaneled 38 potential jurors had an intial G last name (55%), that it wasn’t a ‘representative’ sample, possibly not randomly selected, which would seem to taint the jury pool.
and, as Bricker points out, they dealt w/it prior to the trial (saving quite a bit, if the trial had gone through then the appeal).
so, what’s your gripe again? That a judge potentially erred on the side of trying to be fair and impartial before the trial, to avoid a mistrial?
As stupid as this whole thing sounds, it actually raises an interesting question about the methodology used to select a jury pool. In this computerized age, they still select buttons from a drum to select the jury pool. The buttons correspond to letters, and people with last names beginning with said letters are included in the pool. They continue to select letters until they have enough people in the pool.
This stupid methology lends itself to skewed jury pools. In this case, if the letter “G” is selected, the pool may include a large hispanic population
The methodology they use could easily result in a jury pool that is, for example, 50% hispanic even if the general population is much less than 50% hispanic. On the flip side, if a “G” isn’t selected, one’s jury pool may have far fewer hispanics than in the population at large. Honestly, they should use some methodology such as “last 2 digits of your SSN” that is unrelated to a persons ethnicity.
I agree, Cheesy. The county has a defined plan for selecting the panel of eligible jurors, which involves using the first letter of the potential jurors’ last name. Taking as true the statement that a disporportionate number of people whose name starts with ‘G’ are hispanic, then someone who draws the ‘G’ pool would have a disproportionate number of hispanics in the eligible jury pool.
You don’t have a constitutional right to have your jury reflect the exact racial makeup of the area you live in. However, you do have the right to be sure that the pool of eligible jurors from which your jury will be drawn is fairly representative of the makeup of the area in which you live.
In this case, the institutionalized process for picking jurors meant that certain pools would be more likely to be heavily hispanic. By extension, in pools containing letters other than ‘G’, hispanics would tend to be underrepresented.
Compare it to a system whereby the jury pool is chosen by street. One trial, the potential jurors would be primarily from Maple Street. Maple Street might be in an area that is primarily black. That would mean more blacks would be in the eligible jury pool. Conversely, Maple Street may be in a ritzy suburb, so that most of the eligible jurors would be wealthy and white.
I repeat that your actual jury does not have to accurately reflect the racial makeup of the area. However, if the way the county uses to choose jurors means that certain juries will almost always have more hispanics, or more whites, or what have you, the defense has a point.
The Sesame Street generation: “This trial was brought to you by the letter ‘G’.”
[Redd Foxx]
And the G is for Getaway!
[/Redd Foxx]
Hey! All you fucking assholes that responded after december’s OP
Would you please quit being so factual and logical. Before you know it the mods will have to create a first here–moving a thread from the BBQ Pit to GQ.
Does it seem like the defense is saying that hispanics cannot give a black man a fair trial? Why does this bother me so?
spooje: Well, maybe. But the Constitution, and our basic conception of a jury trial, says a jury ‘of one’s peers’ must be used. If a jury is two-thirds hispanic but the town is only one-fifth hispanic, or if the jury is three-quarters Catholic but drawn from a Protestant-majority town, for examples, is that jury really representative of the accused’s peers? That is at issue here.
My peers cannot be hispanic?
Whew! I’m clear of jury duty! My last name begins with G…
I also have a problem with the underlying assumption made by the defense that their client could not get a fair trial from people of Hispanic origins.
I have a problem with the underlying assumption that a person can get a fair trial from people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
peer2 Pronunciation Key (pîr)
n.
1.A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age: children who are easily influenced by their peers.
From the Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
peer
\Peer\ v. t. To be, or to assume to be, equal. [R.]
From the Declaration of Independence:
So peoples ethnicity have what to do with a fair trial by a jury of your peers
I’m fucking sick of this shit. It is bad enough that there are “No G’s” bathrooms, water fountains, and I’ve got to sit at the back of the bus. Now I find out that to many of my kind can’t sit on a jury for some reason. Just another example of the man keeping us down.
Word up, G.
Marc
There is ample precedent for analyzing the racial and ethnic - and even sex - mix of a jury. The Supremes, in Batson v. Kentucky, said that a prosecutor could not use preemptory challenges to remove members of a cognizeable racial class from a jury when the accused was a member of that class. Progeny of that decision have expanded the rule to drop the requirement that the accused be of the same class of persons removed from the jury, and expanded it to include sex as well as race as an impermissible reason for a preemptory strike.
However, in practice, this is poorly enforced. The procedure mandated by Batson is for the side making the challenge – that is, the side opposing the strike – to make a prima facie case of racial motives in the strikes. If the judge finds such a case made, the burden shifts to the side making the strike to offer up a race-neutral explanation for the removal. The judge then decides the credibility of the explanation, and either permits or disallows the strike.
An appeals court will review this for abuse of discretion. That’s a very forgiving standard, and as long as the judge doesn’t refuse to hear the challenge, or indicate he accepts “mental telepathy” as the race-neutral reason for the strike, whatever he decides will likely pass appellate muster.
It also means that prosecutors – because, let’s face it: prosecutors are, nine times out of ten, the ones defending Batson challenges – are almost encouraged to come up with BS reasons for their strikes. “I struck him because he’s too old/too young/unemployed/employed as a ______/dressed too shabbily/dressed too expensively/wouldn’t answer my questions/spoke up too much/is married/isn’t married…” The list can be endless, and the system encourages lying… er, creative explanations.
In short, there is case law for including a diverse and mixed jury.
spooje and Hamlet, the point is not that there happened to be more hispanics on the jury than normal. That is not, in itself, a problem. The problem is that the method set forth by the government to pick eligible jurors was skewed so that certain juries were almost guaranteed to have a disporportionate number of Hispanics on it.
And face it, race is a factor for the defendant. A person accused of a crime wants people who identify with him. Not to say that all blacks would think alike, nor would all whites, all hispanics, all men, all women, etc. But, as a white man, I would feel uneasy about a jury that was composed entirely of blacks, and a black man would most likely feel uncomfortable with a jury that was entirely white.