So was the defendant convicted? If so does he have grounds to appeal since his attorney was good with the first jury?

On the one hand I am upset by what he did. But on the otherhand, if there is a problem with the diversity of our jury pool, which I heard was the case, would anyone have tried to determine exactly what was going on? I mean, without Judge Stevens essentially forcing the issue, would anyone be looking at this issue?

I believe the premise behind the action makes sense. We should have a jury that represents the population at large when possible.

 

But the procedure or approach to accomplish it , we'll it doesn't sit well.

 

Then you're basically looking at someone choosing specific jurors to sit on a case. Percentage wise, a case of all white men may not be representative of the overall population, but may still be a statistical possibility given the makeup of the jury pool.

 

I prefer the randomness of the selection process.

On the one hand I am upset by what he did. But on the otherhand, if there is a problem with the diversity of our jury pool, which I heard was the case, would anyone have tried to determine exactly what was going on? I mean, without Judge Stevens essentially forcing the issue, would anyone be looking at this issue?

What issue? Why does diversity matter in a jury pool?

I'm not crazy about what he did here. Those called for jury duty are selected at random and the 40-member panels from which a jury is selected are also taken at random. 37 of the 40 panelists were white. Not much either side can do about that.

 

It's not like there was a Batson issue and the prosecutor tossed the black panel members off the jury. The defense attorney got the jurors he wanted as well. It was all done above board and this was the result.

 

Still, I understand the concerns and the history involved in this.

 

My biggest problem is the timing. They went through an entire day of voir dire and ended up empaneling a full jury. Only then did the judge decide that something was wrong with the jury and wrong with the panel. Why?[/QUOTE]

 

Because of the title "Judge" and for no other reason. Yet another reason to call for reforms.

 

I agree with you though, each side got what they wanted through the selection process. Who is a judge to toss it all out if the process was followed ?

It's an interesting coincidence that this all came up right now given that it's the 30th anniversary of when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Batson v. Kentucky and I went to a dinner at which the attorneys in that case and James Batson himself were the guest speakers.

 

Now this doesn't have to do with Batson per se since that was about peremptory challenges and this issue seems a problem with the way jury pools are put together.

 

I don't know what the judge is going to want done if his problem is that a randomly selected 40-person pool has only 3 black members. That's a much more difficult problem to solve.

I don't know what the judge is going to want done if his problem is that a randomly selected 40-person pool has only 3 black members. That's a much more difficult problem to solve.

 

I think it's Pandora's box, if you ask me. If you say that there needs to be more blacks on a jury, then who's to say you shouldn't have a certain number of women, or a certain number of Baptists (or whatever religion you choose), or a certain number of gun owners, or a certain number of those who attended a private school, or a certain number of blue collar workers, or a certain number of retired people, or a certain number of people who were born out of state, or...........

 

Our skin color is just one of many, many, many things that makes us who we are as an individual. Ludicrous to me to choose just one, and assemble a jury based upon that. Let the voir dire process work (since each case is different), and randomly draw from those left.

I think it's Pandora's box, if you ask me. If you say that there needs to be more blacks on a jury, then who's to say you shouldn't have a certain number of women, or a certain number of Baptists (or whatever religion you choose), or a certain number of gun owners, or a certain number of those who attended a private school, or a certain number of blue collar workers, or a certain number of retired people, or a certain number of people who were born out of state, or...........

 

Our skin color is just one of many, many, many things that makes us who we are as an individual. Ludicrous to me to choose just one, and assemble a jury based upon that. Let the voir dire process work (since each case is different), and randomly draw from those left.

 

Well they're the same... and they're not. As it was put to me not long ago: the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s and 70s didn't just happen out of nowhere; it happened because the South refused to give up. For that reason, the black/white issue comes with a whole lot more history and boatload more case law behind it.

 

The jury pool question remains a difficult one because a random sample is never going to pull out a jury pool in which 21 percent of its members are black (as would reflect the overall numbers in Jefferson County). The judge said he didn't see anything wrong with the process but still managed to find fault with this result. It's troubling because the judge didn't give anyone any indication at all as to how to solve the problem in the future.