Posted on 12/27/2004 3:29:25 PM PST by Coleus
People cannot not be barred from juries solely because their clothing or occupation suggest they are devoutly religious, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
The court ruled that an assistant Essex County prosecutor abused his discretion during jury selection when he tossed a man whose attire and prayer cap suggested he was Muslim, and another who said he was a missionary. The prosecutor contended that people who are "demonstrative" about their religions "tend to favor defendants."
In a 6-0 decision written by Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, the court noted that followers of certain faiths are readily identifiable by their clothing and that some religions, notably the Mormons, require missionary activity. Excluding them from juries because of those displays of faith amounts to nothing more than "religious bias rooted in stereotypes," Poritz wrote.
The ruling entitles Lloyd Fuller, 24, of Orange, to a new trial on his conviction for robbing a take-out restaurant while armed with a water pistol. He was sentenced in 2001 to 10 years in prison and is currently at a halfway house.
The ruling, which granted that jurors can be dismissed if there is some other evidence that they are biased, was applauded by the Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based group that fights for religious liberty, and the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Both had joined the case as friends of the court.
"What the prosecutor is suggesting is that Muslims who wear clothing associated with their faith, as a group, cannot sit as impartial jurors or follow the judge's instructions on the law," Poritz wrote. "By excluding such persons based merely on religious bias rooted in stereotypes, neither the purpose of the peremptory challenge nor of the representative cross-section rule is served."
"I think in the end this benefits our society most," Pugliese said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
I understand in that in NYC some criminals do NOT plea bargain since they know if the jury consists of people from their community they will be found not guilty.
Didn't Lionel Cryer, a juror give the "power salute" fist sign after the OJ verdict?
Star Ledger articles are online for 14 days, if you want the article save it now.
Of course if the juror was a fundamentalist Christian, it would be kosher to exclude him on the grounds of appearance. The NJ Supremes simply carved out as liberals are wont to do, an exception in the law just for Muslims.
Prosecuting attorneys still have their peremptory challenges available to them.
The Conservative Rutherford Institute and the ACLU were together on this issue.
Wnna bet the ACLU will take the opposite stance next time the juror's a fundamentalist Christian?
Pretty much it depends on who the defendant is and what he's charged with. "Religious" does not equal "soft on crime."
I'm of the opinion that no one is "impartial". We are all the some of our experiences and like it or not, those experiences create both known and unknown bias.
The BEST that you can hope for in a jury is a peer of the defendant. Anything else is suspect.
"Prosecuting attorneys still have their peremptory challenges available to them."
Yes, BUT peremptory challenges ain't as peremptory as they used to be. Effectively, now you must at least show that your challenge was NOT based in an invidious bias against a protected class.
This is the real crime in this story.
Narrated Abu Juhaifa:Kinda creates a conflict when a Muslim juror is trying a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim, doesn't it?I asked Ali, "Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book?" 'Ali replied, "No, by Him Who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don't think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an, and we have what is written in this paper as well." I asked, "What is written in this paper?" He replied, "(The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel."
And this needed a State Supreme Court ruling?
What part of the First Amendment is so confusing about:
"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of Religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Funny how the legal system has gone completely, anti-Christian insane. What is it with these lawyers?
Methinks the US Constitution should be amended for special criminal penalties for lawyers and judges who misuse their positions. Swift and sure punishment is the best deterrent.
Visit the ANTI-DNC Web Portal at --->
http://www.noDNC.com
I really don't have a problem with this holding. It will apply to orthodox Jews, to priests, and to anyone who expresses devout faith during voir dire. I once had a prosecutor strike a Lutheran minister because, as he told me later, their office believed that ministers were "too forgiving." Dang, too late to challenge that one.
Of course the Democrats want to impose a religious litmus test for the Supreme Court...
Of course if the juror was a fundamentalist Christian, it would be kosher to exclude him on the grounds of appearance.
Excuse me but the prosecutor threw off another juror because he said he was a missionary. I would assume he was a christian, just to put things in perspective here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.