Muslim Jurors For 9/11 Islamic Terrorists

theFinancialSkinny ^ | November 17, 2009 | theFinancialSkinny

[Tampa]

Muslims whose loyalty is to Islam and Sharia law could reasonably be expected to lie during voir dire about their impartiality in this case. The defendants are, after all, "soldiers of Islam" who struck a mighty blow against the Great Satan. In any case, a Muslim juror who votes to convict would become an outcast and a target for murder.

[Senormechanico]

I suspect if they voted to acquit they would expect the same fate, just from a different shall we say, demographic?

[Borges]

And prosecutors who try to remove them from the Jury Pool face legal action for Civil Rights violations.

[Bob Eimiller]

Hey... it must be a jury of their PEERS!!

[VR-21]

Actually, the appointment of muslim jurors might the one good thing to come of this whole disgusting mess. The whole country could see how the muslim jurors behave...assuming the people in this country are capable of seeing what goes on in front of their faces (and remember the jury at the OJ Simpson trial).

[depressed in 06]

In any case, a Muslim juror who votes to convict would become an outcast and a target for murder man caused personal disaster.

[Eagles6]

I guarantee that this prosecution, guided by holder, will make sure that there are muslims on this jury.

[Bob Eimiller]

Well yes, I agree.....but does the Constitution also say that the Juror must be sane too? If they follow islam, they are NOT sane.

Democrats aren't sane and they populate juries. Obama also says Muslims are "wonderful" upstanding and "mainstream". The terrorist at Ft Hood... according to Obama was just a temporarily "deranged" individual.

[El Gato]

Hey... it must be a jury of their PEERS!!

That's not what the Constitution says. But then again, who even reads the old rag these days?

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now an impartial jury might be hard to come by in New York City, but that is what the Constution requires.

[saintgermaine]

I would love to see some Muslim jurors, that could be a hoooot!

[pyrless]

Holder is in for SO much doo-doo. Pretty soon, Obama will find enough room for him under the bus, and the military tribunal will resume.

[Bob Eimiller]

Uh... I think impartial jury encompasses a construed definition of a jury of his peers. Muslims could very well... and probably WILL be on the jury.

Tell me how a prosecuting team could disqualify muslims during jury selection... umm... not a chance. The defense will continue cutting potential jurors until they find one.

BTW you did very well transcribing the sixth amendment... good for you.

[El Gato]

Uh... I think impartial jury encompasses a construed definition of a jury of his peers.

I don't think so. "Peers" implies the same social class, maybe ethnicity, etc. Although legally there are of course no classes in the US. "Peers" in the sense that I took you to mean, that is other Muslims, would hardly be "impartial".

Tell me how a prosecuting team could disqualify muslims during jury selection... umm... not a chance. The defense will continue cutting potential jurors until they find one.

The defense doesn't have an infinite number of preemptory challenges available. I don't think the Muslim population of New York is so high that the prosecution would not be able to eliminate enough of them in the jury panel just using premptory challenges, which need not be justified, in such a way that there would not be another Muslim candidate "in line" ahead of non challenged non Muslims. Since there are many more non Muslims than Muslims in the jury pool, the defense would loose that sort of "eliminate to get to the juror I want" verses "elimination of jurors I don't want" contest.

The real problem would likely be that the Justice Department prosector wouldn not even try to preempt Muslim jurors, even if they were on the terrorist watch list, remembering that in “Audacity of Hope” Obama wrote: “Of In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. ... I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

[Bob Eimiller]

I don't think so. "Peers" implies the same social class, maybe ethnicity, etc. Although legally there are of course no classes in the US. "Peers" in the sense that I took you to mean, that is other Muslims, would hardly be "impartial"

Peers are non-felonious American citizens period. It has nothing to do with wealth, social class, color, creed, sexual orientation, education, or gender. Impartiality is a subjective concept and you can expect there will be Muslims in the jury pool for at least one and maybe all of the so called "defendants".

If you think the prosecution will be able to successfully challenge seating any Muslims in a jury you are delusional...

This radical left sewage sham has already been politically charged since the obscene Obama/Holder slap at the face of the American people. It's going to escalate rapidly into an extreme emotional platform for propaganda with grotesque grandstanding from the left. The noise will be especially shrill from radical Islam which, by the way in my opinion, is pretty much the norm.

These trials will be a circus not seen since Nuremberg and the disgusting smell will gag a maggot.