Curious jury makeup in Bobby Ferguson's case.

[brizee]

http://www.freep.com/article/2012051...text|FRONTPAGE

That is extremely shady.

Even if he's probably guilty I'd be howling to the mountaintops too.

[corktownyuppie]

http://www.freep.com/article/2012051...text|FRONTPAGE

That is extremely shady.

Even if he's probably guilty I'd be howling to the mountaintops too.

Yeah, if a jury convicts, I wouldn't want there to be even a potential to claim a racially biased jury.

Here's the problem:

Of the 116 potential jurors who were summoned for duty in this case, eight were African American. One was dismissed because she was the dental hygienist for one of the defense lawyers. Another male was dismissed because he was an entertainer, and his already-scheduled gigs would have conflicted with the trial.

I'd say scrap voir dire and start over one more time and give it a try, but I'm not a prosecutor, either. Maybe the prosecutor could use the current jury make-up and use it as leverage to negotiate a settlement. That's probably a much better route for everyone anyway.

[poobert]

Yes, it's a shame and it is a severe blow to true justice, however:

"a working mother with college-aged children -- refused to look at one of the prosecutors."
Uh, okay?

"According to The Detroit News, Court officials believe several factors are contributing to the problem: jury questionnaires in some predominantly minority areas come back as undeliverable or not at all, and no shows."
from another article.

A good place to start would be more African-Americans returning their questioneers, showing up, and acting professional [[In this instance I am specifically referring to 'refusing to look at' a prosecutor). That needs to come from within the community. It seems like a very worthy project for the NAACP, rather than burying words or giving awards to Kid Rock.

[EASTSIDE CAT 67-83]

"In court records, Chambers noted that the Eastern District of Michigan has “traditionally and historically had issues” with the under-representation of African Americans in the jury pool."

Golly gee Ward, can't they just get more African Americans to move into the Eastern District so they can prevent this problem of "under representation" in the future. Race Race Race... Race Race Race... man this stuff gets old. This problem is wrapped securely around the axle of Detroit and the country in general. Heck I'd say Whitey is under represented in Detroit but know one screams injustice about that. Sorry for the rant...

[Meddle]

I'd say scrap voir dire and start over ...

I'd like to see that whole process scrapped.

Call the number of potential jurors at random. Let the court validate them and remove any with conflicts.

The lawyers should not be able to stack the jury. Either way.

[EASTSIDE CAT 67-83]

Well said Meddle. Word up

[JBMcB]

Call the number of potential jurors at random. Let the court validate them and remove any with conflicts.

So what constitutes a conflict? Who gets to decide that? A judge? What if the judge has no clue as to the subject matter of the case - say if it involves internet stalking? Every case is different, there can't be a set standard as to what constitutes a conflict or possible prejudice in the jury.

The lawyers should not be able to stack the jury. Either way.

This *is* what judges are supposed to protect against.

[kraig]

"In court records, Chambers noted that the Eastern District of Michigan has “traditionally and historically had issues” with the under-representation of African Americans in the jury pool."

Golly gee Ward, can't they just get more African Americans to move into the Eastern District so they can prevent this problem of "under representation" in the future. Race Race Race... Race Race Race... man this stuff gets old. This problem is wrapped securely around the axle of Detroit and the country in general. Heck I'd say Whitey is under represented in Detroit but know one screams injustice about that. Sorry for the rant...

Yes, this stuff gets old. Especially for those of us that have to deal with being less than 1 percent of the pool. I fill out those questionnaires all of the time and never get called for jury duty. Ferguson's lawyers have a very legitimate beef. In this day and age there's no excuse for not having diversity represented on a jury. It goes beyond just African Americans. There's under representation of Arabs, Chaldeans, Hispanics and Asians as well.

And as far as white people being under represented in Detroit. Please provide a good example of that. Because history has shown that African americans in Detroit will support white candidates, businesses and organizations.

[Wesley Mouch]

I'd like to see that whole process scrapped.

Call the number of potential jurors at random. Let the court validate them and remove any with conflicts.

The lawyers should not be able to stack the jury. Either way.

I've been through this process, sitting at the defense table working with a lawyer picking jurors in federal court. We didn't like the result 100%. But it was 100% fair.

The process does not allow lawyers to 'stack the jury. It allows lawyers to reject jurors. That helps both sides get to a fair jury.

Lawyers cannot add anyone to the list. Only subtract. Some for cause, and a more limited number of rejections for no cause.

This is Federal Court -- so the poor of juror covers much of lower Michigan. And I don't think its not one-day, one-trial.

Sorry that someone feels that race is a factor in deciding on a jury of 'peers'. I don't. I think a white, unemployed auto worker from Ypsilanti is just as much a peer as a black city worker, for example.

This system works pretty well.

[catch22]

This is Federal Court -- so the poor of juror covers much of lower Michigan. And I don't think its not one-day, one-trial.

Nine counties. Sanilac, St. Clair, Macomb, Oakland, Wayne, Washtenaw, Jackson, Lenawee & Monroe.

[gazhekwe]

"refused to look at the prosecutor" is interesting. Could this be the legal community trying to impose some kind of social norm on people of differing backgrounds?

[corktownyuppie]

"refused to look at the prosecutor" is interesting. Could this be the legal community trying to impose some kind of social norm on people of differing backgrounds?

Um, trying to be open-minded about this, but is there a subsegment of the black community that considers it improper or impolite to make eye contact with the officer of the court questioning you?

Also, the both attorneys have the right to strike a certain number of jurors for any reason or no reason at all. This may be one of those situations where equal rules and equal treatment don't necessarily make for a result that both sides find equally acceptable.

That problem with the undeliverable mail or unwilling no-shows in ther African American juror pool really needs to be addressed.

[Malcove Magnesia]

Channel 4 has posted an interview with a dismissed juror. While her beef appears to be that she was kicked off the jury for her tattoos, she doesn't address why she wasn't looking at the prosecutor.

Which to [[non-lawyer) me would indicate a bias in favor of the defense.

[Wesley Mouch]

...This may be one of those situations where equal rules and equal treatment don't necessarily make for a result that both sides find equally acceptable....

The question isn't whether they find it acceptable -- only whether it is just. The public good is justice. The defense simply wants acquittal. This isn't about 'acceptable'.

[Zacha341]

OK, correct me if I am wrong as I've only caught a bit of this story, but from what I gather the one potential juror got tossed because she had tattoos on her upper arms? Duh, just wear a jacket problem solved. Or maybe she just 'wanted' an out. The lack of eye contact too... well of course she needed to GO.

Whatever, I almost want to say. If we want more black representation, more black people have to respond to the summons. I've not received one in decades. You have to be a registered voter to be called so lower percentages there... well.... you get what you get. What a mess.

[corktownyuppie]

The question isn't whether they find it acceptable -- only whether it is just. The public good is justice. The defense simply wants acquittal. This isn't about 'acceptable'.

I agree with you. It is not my argument that people should find the result acceptable. That's highly unlikely, since the prosecution's desired result and the defense's desired result are diametrically opposed.

The public good is justice. And I agree with McQuade: the rules of justice have been followed. The question I think we should be discussing is whether or not the rules -- as they stand -- are giving us the public justice that we demand. I don't know the answer to that question, nor am I advocating any specific change.

I just know that intuitively speaking, we can and should do better. But how we do that? I have no answers.

[Zacha341]

Ummm, I feel you but IMO not need to over-strain or be any further 'open-minded' to understand this. It ain't that deep!

This specific woman just was not into it or not the type to give good eye contact, period, perhaps. I see no need to be too psychiatric about it.

She does not represent any subsegment, of whom I am certain eye contact varies when dealing with the law.

Who is cataloging statistics of such? So to answer your question, NO.

Um, trying to be open-minded about this, but is there a subsegment of the black community that considers it improper or impolite to make eye contact with the officer of the court questioning you?

[Zacha341]

Precisely! Case closed!

The question isn't whether they find it acceptable -- only whether it is just. The public good is justice. The defense simply wants acquittal. This isn't about 'acceptable'.

[corktownyuppie]

Ummm, I feel you but IMO not need to over-strain or be any further 'open-minded' to understand this. It ain't that deep!

This specific woman just was not into it or not the type to give good eye contact, period, perhaps. I see no need to be too psychiatric about it.

She does not represent any subsegment, of whom I am certain eye contact varies when dealing with the law.

Who is cataloging statistics of such? So to answer your question, NO.

Well, I was asking the question facetiously...I'm sorry that did not come across effectively.

[Zacha341]

^^^ I'm sorry - my bad for not reading it that way CTY! I just tire of the social engineers, group-behavior, academic studies types [[who often have other agendas) who condescending try to give a reason and rationale for things beyond and beneath such an analysis. You feel me on this...? Hah!

[corktownyuppie]

Ha. Yes, I feel you. Sometimes race is a reason. Sometimes it's an excuse. I think we're really shitty at discerning the difference in the public forum.

[Wesley Mouch]

I agree with you. It is not my argument that people should find the result acceptable. That's highly unlikely, since the prosecution's desired result and the defense's desired result are diametrically opposed.

The public good is justice. And I agree with McQuade: the rules of justice have been followed. The question I think we should be discussing is whether or not the rules -- as they stand -- are giving us the public justice that we demand. I don't know the answer to that question, nor am I advocating any specific change.

I just know that intuitively speaking, we can and should do better. But how we do that? I have no answers.

Yuppie. My problem is that I don't really see the problem. Perhaps I am racist and blinded by tremendous advantage.

I'd like to see everyone involved in jury duty -- but like the Florida election mess -- the most important thing is impartiality.

The result in this one case has exactly one problem -- apparent racial quota failing, but one really crucial success -- impartiality in selection.

The way we select jurors is very clear, open, transparent. There's opportunity for challenges for no cause whatsoever. The defense gets the last challenge, if I recall. And they can use it or any of their challenges based on race -- or whatever else they might want. I can't think of much you can do to make it more impartial.

No as to increasing the pool -- anyone can do that. All they have to do is live and register. Its very just.

[Wheels]

It dose not always have to come down to race, tattoos, hair style, eye contact, piercings ,clothings etc. Sometime it's just "You Can't Fix Stupid"!

[corktownyuppie]

I'd like to see everyone involved in jury duty -- but like the Florida election mess -- the most important thing is impartiality.

Impartiality is the most important thing. But impartiality is like the fantasy ideal that we strive to aspire to but is never really reachable. If impartiality were achievable, we wouldn't need juries. We would just have one impartial judge make the decisions. Or you'd have one judge to rule on procedural issues and another to rule on the facts of the case.

This is why having a jury of one's peers is critical to the process. Because we recognize that as much as we try to be impartial, it's an ideal that can never really be idealized.

So is this a jury of one's peers? Arguably yes and arguably no. What I'm pointing out is not that the process was executed unfairly. It's that systemic errors can sometimes exist in the process itself. Like I said, I'm not sure what the answer to that is, and I'm not really sure that an answer exists.

But God forbid I ever need to be sitting in the defendant's chair, I would like that an impartial jury not be made up of 12 people whose worldviews are in direct collision with my own. I don't know what's in the hearts and minds of the jury. And certainly race is not the sole source of one's worldview. But one can't deny that it's a factor.

I think Ferguson is guilty as shit. He wouldn't want me on that jury. And I probably would be unable to get over any of my biases to deliberate the facts impartially. But I'm a young minority-race, Detroit-born, Detroit resident. Am I one of Ferguson's "peers"?

Like I said, I don't know the answers. But I think it's totally reasonable to discuss whether a jury consisting of 1 person who shares the defendant's race is likely to be or not to be a representative jury of one's peers.

[Meddle]

One of the most important jobs of a Juror is to listen intently to both sides as well as the Judge. One part of listening is eye contact. Lack of eye contact indicates boredom or lack of interest in what is being said. Eye contact with person "A", but no eye contact with person "B" implies you are more interested in what person "A" is saying and/or are more sympathetic to their position. Not a good indicator that a Juror will be fair and impartial.

Tattoos should be covered in professional settings like court.

I don't know if they still do it, but when I worked for the Federal Court, the Chief Judge would issues warrant for people that failed to show for Jury duty and send out the US Marshals to arrest them. They would be brought to his courtroom to explain why they didn't show up.