11 white jurors, 1 Black man seated in Arbery murder trial

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Great point.

However, if I read the OP's article right the defense actually did use 11 strikes on black jurors. The prosecution used 12 strikes on white jurors.

Prosecutor Linda Dunikoski said the attorneys representing Greg McMichael, his son Travis McMichael and their neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan used their allotted strikes to eliminate 11 of 12 prospective Black jurors from the qualified panel, leaving a mostly white jury to decide the high-profile case.

The takeaway from this is the defendants are supposed to be guaranteed a fair trial, but clearly attorneys on both sides thought skin color mattered. It was still a fair election process and I still think the jury will be impartial.

The prosecutor is full of fucking shit. That is not what happened and that's not how it works. That fucker is using the luck of the draw as I describe, and blaming it on the defense.

That motherfucker should be disbarred for lying. What a fucking shit head.

But assuming that bullshit is true (it's not) due to black privilege, a Batson Challenge only applies when black jurors are struck solely because of race. You can do all kinds of shit to white people because they're white.

The defense probably didn't even attempt to whip out any Batson Challenges because white people can be struck only because they're white.

 

[B. Kidd]

Why were these 3 guys brandishing guns in the first place?

 

[Lastamender]

You said it was the prosecutor now you are switching to the Judge and during the elections that was looked at by SEVERAL Judges not one.

Corruption is corruption that is what you have settled for. Not me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We will know if these 3 racist murderers walk out of that court room free men.

And what if they don't, what are you going to say then?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The McMichaels had no reason to suspect that Arbery was committing any crime. None was committed in their presence or to their personal knowledge. Additionally, they had no authority to attempt a Citizens Arrest. The precedent of Winn Dixie versus Nichols defined who could legally effect a citizens arrest. And they did not qualify.

As the arrest was illegal. That means the attempt to stop Arbery was a Felony. Illegal Imprisonment.

Using a weapon to attempt to stop Arbery was a Felony. Aggravated Assault.

The resulting death is thus Felony Murder. The death occurred during a Felony.

I was talking about the Zimmerman/ Martin case.

 

[horselightning]

They just chased that kid down and killed him. He was wearing running shorts and a T shirt.. No weapons.

He wasn't a known thief. They didn't have his records.. They did this on a lark. .. acting out some vigilante fantasy .. like George Zimmerman.

ok you are in their minds and are a psychic. lol

 

[Notaradical60]

You are just the type of ignorant racist they want on the jury, dumb and stupid.

My thought is this why eliminate anyone from the pool of "Qualified" jurors ? If they are selected to be there they are an American citizen I assume. Put the names in a hat and pull 12 or 18 what ever.. They never get to know what the case is about until they sit in the box and the Evidence begins. So they are only influenced by the Evidence and not Media hype. Anonymous jury selection might result in a more level playing field. You have the right to face your accusers not your jurors.

 

[SavannahMann]

My thought is this why eliminate anyone from the pool of "Qualified" jurors ? If they are selected to be there they are an American citizen I assume. Put the names in a hat and pull 12 or 18 what ever.. They never get to know what the case is about until they sit in the box and the Evidence begins. So they are only influenced by the Evidence and not Media hype. Anonymous jury selection might result in a more level playing field. You have the right to face your accusers not your jurors.

You try and find Jurors who are not known to the Defense or the Prosecution. They don’t know the victim or the accused. The idea is an unbiased case all around.

Also if the case is a death penalty case, some people just won’t even consider voting for that. So one of those on the Jury could cause the entire trial to be heard again, and again.

There are lots of people you wouldn’t want on a Jury. A woman who has been raped would be a bad choice on a jury of a Rape Suspect. A father who’s daughter was attacked would be a bad choice for the same reason.

Have you ever watched 12 Angry Men? It’s interesting to see it. I recently rewatched the original Henry Fonda film. All the people had their own experiences, their own bias to confront before they reached the decision.

You hope that a Jury acts like that. Setting aside their own bias and trying to come to the right decision. You hope it, but history has shown that isn’t always the case. Many Jurors think the defendant must be guilty of something, or else they wouldn’t be here. It is not supposed to be that way, but it is from time to time.

Watch the movie again. From open and shut guilty, you the audience come to the conclusion that the Kid may be guilty, but not based upon this evidence. You have doubts, just as the Jurors have.

 

[surada]

ok you are in their minds and are a psychic. lol

Nope. I watched the video.. The McMichaels were acting out some macho vigilante fantasy.. I used to build both spec and custom..We always welcomed and expected looky lous. Good for business.

 

[Notaradical60]

You try and find Jurors who are not known to the Defense or the Prosecution. They don’t know the victim or the accused. The idea is an unbiased case all around.

Also if the case is a death penalty case, some people just won’t even consider voting for that. So one of those on the Jury could cause the entire trial to be heard again, and again.

There are lots of people you wouldn’t want on a Jury. A woman who has been raped would be a bad choice on a jury of a Rape Suspect. A father who’s daughter was attacked would be a bad choice for the same reason.

Have you ever watched 12 Angry Men? It’s interesting to see it. I recently rewatched the original Henry Fonda film. All the people had their own experiences, their own bias to confront before they reached the decision.

You hope that a Jury acts like that. Setting aside their own bias and trying to come to the right decision. You hope it, but history has shown that isn’t always the case. Many Jurors think the defendant must be guilty of something, or else they wouldn’t be here. It is not supposed to be that way, but it is from time to time.

Watch the movie again. From open and shut guilty, you the audience come to the conclusion that the Kid may be guilty, but not based upon this evidence. You have doubts, just as the Jurors have.

So if it is to be a neutral system and outcomes are based on fact not emotion or bias then it shouldn't matter who serves on the jury. It's better that 10 guilty men go free then for one innocent man to be convicted. MANY capital cases are tried in the media before any evidence is presented. So an unbiased "clean jury" is almost impossible to seat. Unless there is complete anonymity for the defendant and the victim. Guilty people will still be found guilty and innocent people will still be convicted in any system.... fact of life.

 

[horselightning]

Nope. I watched the video.. The McMichaels were acting out some macho vigilante fantasy.. I used to build both spec and custom..We always welcomed and expected looky lous. Good for business.

you have no idea from that video what they were thinking.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You try and find Jurors who are not known to the Defense or the Prosecution. They don’t know the victim or the accused. The idea is an unbiased case all around.

Also if the case is a death penalty case, some people just won’t even consider voting for that. So one of those on the Jury could cause the entire trial to be heard again, and again.

There are lots of people you wouldn’t want on a Jury. A woman who has been raped would be a bad choice on a jury of a Rape Suspect. A father who’s daughter was attacked would be a bad choice for the same reason.

Have you ever watched 12 Angry Men? It’s interesting to see it. I recently rewatched the original Henry Fonda film. All the people had their own experiences, their own bias to confront before they reached the decision.

You hope that a Jury acts like that. Setting aside their own bias and trying to come to the right decision. You hope it, but history has shown that isn’t always the case. Many Jurors think the defendant must be guilty of something, or else they wouldn’t be here. It is not supposed to be that way, but it is from time to time.

Watch the movie again. From open and shut guilty, you the audience come to the conclusion that the Kid may be guilty, but not based upon this evidence. You have doubts, just as the Jurors have.

That may be, but when people tell the prosecutor or defense lawyer they already have a preconceived opinion, they are dismissed on those grounds. Until we can read minds it's the best we can do to protect the accused and the victim.

 

[Desperado]

Ahmaud Arbery case in Georgia: 11 white jurors and just 1 Black man seated for trial

Sparks flew in Brunswick, Georgia, during the final phase of jury selection in the Ahmaud Arbery case Wednesday when prosecutors accused defense attorneys of eliminating a disproportionate number of jurors based on race. In the end, just one Black man made it onto the jury of 12. All the others...

www.ajc.com

Sparks flew during the final phase of jury selection in the Ahmaud Arbery case Wednesday when prosecutors accused defense attorneys of eliminating a disproportionate number of jurors because of their race.

We can see where this is going.
The fix is in.

So what? I tk offense that you think a whte jury could not give them a fair trial. Quit your bitching, What do you want 11 blacks and 1 white on the jury?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The McMichaels had no reason to suspect that Arbery was committing any crime.

That is INCORRECT.

Next.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what? I tk offense that you think a whte jury could not give them a fair trial. Quit your bitching, What do you want 11 blacks and 1 white on the jury?

You have to remember Super lives in the 50's. He is not living his life in 2021. In his mind most if not all whites are out to get the black man, so there is no possible way for them to reach a fair decision.

That's why it will be so entertaining if the white jury remains and they find the white guys guilty.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

....but instead they filled it with friends and family of the McMichaels and you think that's fair.

Let me tell you something about the word "good" brotha

"Good" is an ancient Anglo-Saxon word Go-OD

Meaning the absence of color

i.e. it's all good. Which is its

OR -- Good Will Hunting --meaning --- I'm huntin' n*ggas

So, if you say GOOD MORNING to me, the only thing you're saying is.....


I'm gonna kill yo black ass...FIRST thing in the morning.


SuperConspiracyBrutha

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Proof?

I already showed you how it works in my post above.

Now, prove to me that they struck every black juror in the panel or shut your race-bating cake hole.

You got nothing.

You're way out of your element, ConspiracyBrutha.

It's part of the news story. There were 12 prospective black jurors and the defense got all but 1 stricken.

By the way, I though a person accused of a crime is supposed to be judged by a jury of his peers. If the jury isn't representative of the population where the crime occurred or the trial is being held or if the jury is filled with people who are not "peers" then what?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The defense used the stated bias of those jurors to strike them as evidenced by the Judges comment on it being discriminatory BUT they had justifiable reason. In other words the Judge whined about following the law.

I wonder why they didn't move the whole trial to a different venue where everyone doesn't know the defendants/victim.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You try and find Jurors who are not known to the Defense or the Prosecution. They don’t know the victim or the accused. The idea is an unbiased case all around.

Also if the case is a death penalty case, some people just won’t even consider voting for that. So one of those on the Jury could cause the entire trial to be heard again, and again.

There are lots of people you wouldn’t want on a Jury. A woman who has been raped would be a bad choice on a jury of a Rape Suspect. A father who’s daughter was attacked would be a bad choice for the same reason.

Have you ever watched 12 Angry Men? It’s interesting to see it. I recently rewatched the original Henry Fonda film. All the people had their own experiences, their own bias to confront before they reached the decision.

You hope that a Jury acts like that. Setting aside their own bias and trying to come to the right decision. You hope it, but history has shown that isn’t always the case. Many Jurors think the defendant must be guilty of something, or else they wouldn’t be here. It is not supposed to be that way, but it is from time to time.

Watch the movie again. From open and shut guilty, you the audience come to the conclusion that the Kid may be guilty, but not based upon this evidence. You have doubts, just as the Jurors have.

Another good movie is Runaway Jury with John Cusack from 2003.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Proof?

I already showed you how it works in my post above.

Now, prove to me that they struck every black juror in the panel or shut your race-bating cake hole.

You got nothing.

You're way out of your element, ConspiracyBrutha.

Using a standard court procedure called a peremptory strike, the attorneys eliminated all but one of the dozen Black people in the final jury pool this week, leaving a nearly all-White panel to weigh murder charges in a killing that many see as inseparable from race.

Arbery was killed near Brunswick, a 16,200-population city that is 55 percent Black, according to the latest census. The surrounding county, from which the jurors were selected, is about 27 percent Black. Yet the sole Black juror in the trial represents about 8 percent of the jury’s makeup.

In 2018, the Washington Supreme Court said judges should reject peremptory strikes if “an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor,” not just if there was intentional discrimination. It also said striking a juror for distrusting law enforcement, living in a high-crime neighborhood or not being a native English speaker would no longer be allowed because such rationales “have been associated with improper discrimination.”

Another solution some advocacy groups recommend is lowering the number of peremptory strikes allowed per party, to make it harder to wipe out an entire race from the pool.

MSN

www.msn.com