Unless you're ready to scrap the juror selection process all together and start over what your asking is impossible.

 

No trial that is racial in nature should be as lopsided as this is, in either direction. Period.

 

If that means changing the jury selection, I'm all for exploring other options.

Yet it happens all the time to people in the black community.

 

And white people. And Hispanic people . And Asian people. And women. And everyone.

And white people. And Hispanic people . And Asian people. And women. And everyone.

 

Correct. So I'm not sure what the point of your OP was.

No trial that is racial in nature should be as lopsided as this is, in either direction. Period.

 

If that means changing the jury selection, I'm all for exploring other options.

 

Do you know what went into this jury selection? Do you know anything about this jury aside from their race and gender?

 

What exactly would you change, since you know very little about how they selected this jury in the first place?

 

Do you think the defendant doesn't deserve the same rights as everyone else?

Correct. So I'm not sure what the point of your OP was.

 

That we know nothing about these people and can't judge them as jurors based on race and gender. It was pretty clear.

Correct. So I'm not sure what the point of your OP was.

Who determines if it is racial? Or is it anytime there is a defendant of one race and a victim of a different race?

Do you know what went into this jury selection? Do you know anything about this jury aside from their race and gender?

 

What exactly would you change, since you know very little about how they selected this jury in the first place?

 

Do you think the defendant doesn't deserve the same rights as everyone else?

 

I don't need to know anything about the selection process to acknowledge that the jury is slanted in one direction.

 

I dont know "exactly" what I would change, never implied as much. Simply said I would be open to considering new options.

 

Are you inferring that by having an equally divided jury the defendants rights would be violated?

Who determines if it is racial? Or is it anytime there is a defendant of one race and a victim of a different race?

 

I would say society and the general public "decides" when issues are racial.

There isn't a right answer that I can come up with, but you're drawing jurors from all of Hamilton County. If this was a federal trail, the pool would be even larger.

 

The problem is, Hamilton County, like many major metropolitan areas are relatively segregated. The demographics of the county are majority white, but realistically, one's peers generally look like they do. Statistically speaking, the original pool is going to already steer white before people are excused and the lawyers strike, for all intents and purposes, for any reason. Adding to this, the statistics we often see where black men are significantly more likely to serve time in jail, logic states that a black defendant's peers will more often than other potential jurors have a felony record, thus precluding them from serving.

 

On the surface, there is nothing nefarious going on and the jury makeup looks like I would expect it to, but the fact remains that Officer Tensing starts with a leg up.

I don't need to know anything about the selection process to acknowledge that the jury is slanted in one direction.

 

I dont know "exactly" what I would change, never implied as much. Simply said I would be open to considering new options.

 

Are you inferring that by having an equally divided jury the defendants rights would be violated?

 

I'm saying that the defendant deserves the same jury selection process as every other defendant.

Do people believe the strikes that attorneys are allowed to use are never used because of race?

Don't both the prosecution and the defense get to strike potential jurors. So if it turned out this way, are we saying Deters may not really want to convict Tensing since he slanted the jury in favor of the white guy?

Don't both the prosecution and the defense get to strike potential jurors. So if it turned out this way, are we saying Deters may not really want to convict Tensing since he slanted the jury in favor of the white guy?

 

Wow. Seems like a big stretch.

Wow. Seems like a big stretch.

 

What else would be the reason to argue the race of the jurors?

What else would be the reason to argue the race of the jurors?

 

I don't follow. Do people believe Deters doesn't want a prosecution?