Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court overturns death row inmate's conviction
Reuters ^ | March 19, 2008 | James Vicini

Posted on 03/19/2008 11:42:44 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the conviction of a black Louisiana death row inmate because race had played an improper role in the selection of an all-white jury.

By a 7-2 vote, the high court ruled for Allen Snyder, who had been convicted and sentenced to death in 1996 for stabbing his estranged wife 15 times and killing a man with whom she was talking.

During jury selection in New Orleans, prosecutor James Williams excluded five black potential jurors, resulting in an all-white jury. Defense attorneys objected to the removal of two of the potential jurors, arguing the decision by the prosecutor had been improperly based on race.

In a narrow, fact-specific ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court majority held the trial judge had committed clear error in ruling against the defense lawyers over the removal of one of the black potential jurors. The court did not address the second potential juror.

The justices overturned a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court that held that race had played no part in the prosecutor's decision to remove the black potential jurors.

[snip]

Justices Clarence Thomas, the court's only black, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented. Thomas wrote that none of the evidence in record demonstrated that the trial judge erred in finding the two potential jurors were not removed because of race.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: alito; deathpenalty; scalia; scotus
Interesting lineup: Alito and Roberts for the defendant, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.
1 posted on 03/19/2008 11:42:44 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

...

I want them to rule on the 2nd amendment so I can go back to ignoring the SCOTUS


2 posted on 03/19/2008 12:00:11 PM PDT by TheZMan (I'm going to write my own name on the ballot. Screw the current crop of "conservatives".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
These Batson challenges have become so arcane, it's just a minefield for jury selection.

They have even started challenging on the basis of Batson on the civil side as well.

3 posted on 03/19/2008 12:00:32 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Interesting lineup: Alito and Roberts for the defendant, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

Bump.

4 posted on 03/19/2008 12:00:41 PM PDT by MotleyGirl70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I was just saying the other day to someone who was singing Bush’s praises re:nominees, that it was too early to tell how exactly they would shape up. This is of course no fault of Bush’s, just a fact that so many seem to change once they have a lifetime appointment. That’s not to say that I think Roberts or Alito aren’t strict constructionists, it’s just too early to tell how they’ll shake out.

That being said, the Batson challenges may be annoying, but in some cases, are also necessary. On one case I worked on, it wasn’t just the prosecutor, but the Judge as well. I guess they forgot they were on camera and on the record when hashing out the Defense’s objections. Unfortunately, just as their are bad defense attorney’s, there are also bad prosecutors, bad judges, bad cops, etc. Few people realize how an out of control prosecutor can impact lives. Most have already forgotten Nifong, who is just one of many. I’m not saying all are bad, in fact, most prosecutors I that I interact with are honest, decent, hard working people, who are interested in justice. (On more than one occassion, a prosecutor has said that they thought the jury was wrong in a case they won).


5 posted on 03/19/2008 12:13:24 PM PDT by IMissPresidentReagan ( I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica-- conservative Republican - John McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The justices overturned a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court that held that race had played no part in the prosecutor's decision to remove the black potential jurors.

Um, the prosecution isn't the only party involved in jury selection.

6 posted on 03/19/2008 12:18:21 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Um, the prosecution isn't the only party involved in jury selection.

True, but in this case the prosecutor struck all the black jurors over the defendant's objection.

7 posted on 03/19/2008 12:21:17 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
True, but in this case the prosecutor struck all the black jurors over the defendant's objection.

From my experience in serving on a jury, there are only a certain number of jurors the prosecutor or defense can reject. Is that not the case in a murder trial?

8 posted on 03/19/2008 12:44:05 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

She obviously fell on that knife 15 times...Rev. Al said so.


9 posted on 03/19/2008 12:47:16 PM PDT by Wavrnr10 (Eagles soar but weasels don't get sucked in jet engines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

You are correct, there is a limit to how many jurors each party can summarily reject (they’re called peremptory challenges). In this case, out of 36 potential jurors (there was originally a panel of 85, 36 of whom survived challenges for cause), 5 were black. The prosecution used their peremptory challenges to strike all 5 black jurors from the jury pool.


10 posted on 03/19/2008 12:49:48 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wavrnr10

It doesn’t matter how many times he stabbed his wife. He was entitled to a fair trial, and part of ensuring a fair trial means that the prosecution can’t systematically exclude jurors on the basis of race.

The underlying crime should have nothing to do with the level of due process one receives before being put to death by the state. Bad people deserve fair trials too.


11 posted on 03/19/2008 12:52:49 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Wasn’t this the case involving “Canadians”?


12 posted on 03/19/2008 12:55:44 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Always look for the underlying assumption that’s never stated: All Whites Are Racist And Can’t Judge Fairly.


13 posted on 03/19/2008 1:00:03 PM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged
Always look for the underlying assumption that’s never stated: All Whites Are Racist And Can’t Judge Fairly.

In this case, the prosecutor was acting on the assumption that all blacks are prejudiced in favor of the defense and couldn't judge fairly.

14 posted on 03/19/2008 1:23:32 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Essentially, I agree with you.

I also remember the simpson verdict.


15 posted on 03/19/2008 2:11:49 PM PDT by RobinOfKingston (Man, that's stupid ... even by congressional standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
"True, but in this case the prosecutor struck all the black jurors over the defendant's objection."

Yep...and it's idiot prosecutors like this that put the gas in the tank of folks like. Rev. Wright and the rest of the race baiters.

16 posted on 03/19/2008 2:17:04 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

So by that count, the defense removed all of the white jurors they could.

But that’s not racist, I guess.

However, as recent events have proved - blacks CAN have it both ways.

And we’re all racists for discussing this too - we’ll have to get sent off to the multicultural re-education camp.

I’d say I’m being sarcastic with the last remark, but I’ve known people that have been to ‘Sensitivity Training.’


17 posted on 03/20/2008 12:05:08 PM PDT by rock_lobsta (Client #10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson