David Margolick in his article in The New York Times discuses to what degree race plays a role in juror pools and when a change of venue is requested. The author speculates whether or not a case should be moved in regards of sensitive circumstances (racial or political) (Margolick, 1992, para. 3). In cases that involve organized-crime figure, jurors have been granted anonymity, hence Margolick is asking if such approach can be used in cases when the decision might displease the community. The change of venue is granted rarely and is mainly based on costs and convenience, as well as media coverage and threat for impartial jury. In addition, this article is mainly focused on Rodney King's beating and the accused police officers ( Margolick, 1992, para. 6, and 7). Another reason for changing venue is fear for future retaliation and riots based on the verdict. In addition, the county were the trial was held had a major population of African Americans and their interactions with police shaped a certain view about the law enforcement. Such thing happened 1989 when Judge Spencer moved the trial from Miami to Orlando for those same reasons ( Margolick, 1992, para. 9, and 10). Based on the information in the article, which was published in 1992, legislators in both California and New Jersey …show more content…
One must look at demographics, but not to a point where that is the only source information. When a case involves police shootings or police violence, one must consider community-police relations and whether or not change of venue will benefit the local community where the crime took place. Consequently, judges must be sure that jurors are not impartial and can be objective, as well as competent to make arguments for their reasoning. The social media has made it very difficult to find jurors who have little or no knowledge about a controversial trial or parties that are
The beating of Rodney King from the Los Angeles Police Department on March 3, 1991 and the Los Angeles riots resulting from the verdict of the police officers on April 29 through May 5, 1992 are events that will never be forgotten. They both evolve around one incident, but there are two sides of ethical deviance: the LAPD and the citizens involved in the L.A. riots. The incident on March 3, 1991 is an event, which the public across the nation has never witnessed. If it weren’t for the random videotaping of the beating that night, society would never know what truly happened to Rodney King. What was even more disturbing is the mentality the LAPD displayed to the public and the details of how this mentality of policing led up to this particular incident. This type of ethical deviance is something the public has not seen since the civil rights era. Little did Chief Gates, the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, and the LAPD know what the consequences of their actions would lead to. Moving forward in time to the verdict of those police officers being acquitted of the charges, the public sentiment spiraled into an outrage. The disbelief and shock of the citizens of Los Angeles sparked a mammoth rioting that lasted for six days. The riots led to 53 deaths and the destruction of many building. This is a true but disturbing story uncovering the ethical deviance from the LAPD and the L.A. riots. The two perspectives are from the Rodney King incident are the LAPD and the L.A. riots.
In the 1930’s a plethora of prejudiced persons are present amidst the prominent Scottsboro trials, a seven-year-long case consisting of false rape allegations made against nine black boys from Scottsboro. When citizens fail to acknowledge their own preconceived ideas and look past the prejudice present in society, justice cannot be served. In the Scottsboro case, the court of Alabama disregards the societal issues surrounding racial discrimination and endorses the guilty verdict and conviction of the nine African American boys. Failing to look past their own personal biases, the jury ignores the unquestionable evidence that would support the boys’ case. Instead, the jury focuses on their predilection
In conclusion, we have seen that the race of the victim and the emotionality of the victim impact statements highly affects the jury’s empathy and therefore might influence their decision making. Understanding the interaction between the racial in-group/out-group and empathy may allow defense attorneys to lead jurors for harsher punishments for out-group racial groups and more lenient punishments for in-groups by playing on juror empathy and thus putting emotions before law and reason. Consequently, in any capital punishment case, race of the victim and race of the jury, could be the difference between life and death for a defendant and therefore needs to be studied further.
The questions should be shaped around the individual’s views and also his or her ability to think analytically. Nevertheless, without these important questions, an individual may not qualify for the job. For example, Juror #10, the Garage Owner was an individual who was prejudiced against the defendant. Juror #10 was quick to agree that the defendant is guilty because of his personal view on the defendant’s color and where he lives. By, incorporating critical thinking questions, this may assist to find individuals who do not let their own personal views cloud their judgement and their decision
From the Ferguson, Missouri case of an officer “wrongfully” protecting himself to the Texas DWI case involving the father murdering the murderer of his sons, the media helps play a larger role on the scale to emphasize more attraction to the topic of the moment. With the increasing complexity and reach of the law, to nullify is to be a useful tool in a democratic society. However, a verdict should be based on the law as decided by the whole people, not the few who make up the jury of a particular case. Although judges and legal scholars take a variety of positions of the subject of jury nullification, the validity of the practice is said to follow logically from several aspects of our judicial system. In the general, judges are unwilling in most states to even inform juries the option of
This incident would have produced nothing more than another report for resisting arrest had a bystander, George Holliday, not videotaped the altercation. Holliday then released the footage to the media. LAPD Officers Lawrence Powell, Stacey Koon, Timothy Wind and Theodore Brisino were indicted and charged with assaulting King. Superior Court Judge Stanley Weisberg ordered a change of venue to suburban Simi Valley, which is a predominantly white suburb of Los Angeles. All officers were subsequently acquitted by a jury comprised of 10 whites, one Hispanic and one Asian, and the African American community responded in a manner far worse than the Watts Riots of 1965. ?While the King beating was tragic, it was just the trigger that released the rage of a community in economic strife and a police department in serious dec...
On August 9th, 2014, 18 year old Michael Brown was shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, sparking protests, riots, and widespread debate on police use of force. Numerous questions arose as to whether Michael Brown was armed or unarmed, if he had his hands in the air or was attacking Officer Wilson, and whether Officer Wilson was justified in firing his weapon that resulted in the death of Michael Brown (Itkowitz). Twenty-two years have passed since the riots in Los Angeles after the officers involved in the beating of Rodney King were acquitted on charges of excessive force, and it left many to wonder, including myself, as to why this happened again. Why were there so many questions surrounding the incident and how this could
It seems like the grand juries are siding with police when it comes to court cases. According to a study by the Houston Chronicle, “Grand juries in Harris County, Texas, haven't indicted a police officer in a decade, and grand juries in Dallas looked at 81 possible cases of police criminality between 2008 and 2012 and indicted only one police officer.” (Patrik Jonsson page 1-2). It seems more citizens’ particularly African Americans, are dying because of police shootings or physical violence. More police to be getting away with felonies. The lives of many like Eric Garner are taken away without something in return. In addition, experts say “In places like Staten Island, the pool of grand jurors, polls show, have more respect for police officers than in other boroughs, and may themselves be prejudicial. And leeway for police officers comes out of a deeply held social compact.” (Patrik Jonsson page 2). Different places have high respect for the police this may be why it was hard for the grand jury to indict officer
A study of race and jury trials in Florida published last year in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that “conviction rates for black and white defendants are similar when there is at least some representation of blacks in the jury pool.” But all-white juries are a very different story—they convict blacks 16% more often than they convict whites (2).
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and ‘them’ being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting skin color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Hispanic descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall under the juror’s discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror #10 rants: “They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter… most of them, it’s like they have no feelings (59).
The jury system has evolved from a representation of all white men to both men and women from very diverse backgrounds. This is important if one is going to be tried in his/her community of peers.
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The Biasing Impact Of Pretrial Publicity On Juror Judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 453-469.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
The family of Michael Brown wanted justice for their son in which they felt was an unjust shooting. His mother was quoted expressing mistrust towards the police, "You 're not God. You don 't decide when you 're going to take somebody from here.” (McLaughlin, E. C. (2014, August 15) The family was obviously hurt by the shooting and wanted justice and support. The community began protesting the shooting and Officer Darren Wilson. Chaos broke out in Ferguson and a State of Emergency was issued. The community felt that the shooting was unjust and did not trust police officers. The community response to the shooting often attracted attention and made many political statements. Darren Wilson’s family were interested in maintaining his innocence. They hoped that the investigation would prove to the world that Wilson acted out of self-defense and did not violate Brown’s rights. The Criminal Justice system’s interests all hoped to create reforms and eliminate racism in police departments. On the local level many had to maintain safety in the community and assure proper police procedures. The state had to step into issue curfews and State of Emergencies to keep the state safe despite protests and riots as well as make sure Darren Wilson did not violate any laws of the state of Missouri. The state also hoped to create reforms to better race relations. On the federal level was the investigation which hoped to find out if the