Federal judge tosses out a case because grand jury that handed down the indictment wasn’t ‘diverse’ enough

American Thinker ^ | 06/30/2021 | Thomas Lifson

[SeekAndFind]

Federal judge Analisa Torres, an Obama appointee, dismissed a shooting case against a reputed gang banger because the grand jury that indicted him was drawn from a grand jury pool in White Plains with an “underrepresentation of Black and Latinx individuals.”

It looks to me that Judge Torres is using an invented term, Latinx” to invoke an invented right. Via the New York Post:

“The Government has failed to meet its burden by coming forward with evidence rebutting the presumption that such underrepresentation was the result of purposeful discrimination,” she wrote Monday.

“Therefore, Defendant has established a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to a race-neutral jury selection process.”

Underlying the argument is the fact that the indictment was handed down in Westchester County, not in Manhattan, where the alleged crime took place. Manhattan is more heavily minority than Westchester, where AOC grew up. That must be what led Judge Torres to make a “presumption” of motivation to discriminate. Since when do judges presume guilt?

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Can’t wait for the tribal warfare to go hot.

[phoneman08]

If I were the DA, I’d open a halfway house as near to her home as possible.

[phoneman08]

It’s a good thing the victim was black too. Otherwise, the DA would have just not bothered indicting the perp again.

“P]rosecutors revealed that Scott had already been re-indicted by a different grand jury and his new case was assigned to a different judge.

Scott, 43, is charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition tied to the seizure of three, .380 Eldorado-brand shell casings following a caught-on-camera shooting in which the victim was shot twice in the leg.

Scott is a reputed member of the Bloods gang who allegedly opened fire outside 765 E. 183rd St. amid a dispute with the 36-year-old victim, who lives on the block, law-enforcement sources said.”

[ScottfromNJ]

Interesting. I wonder if the Jan 6 capitol protestors who’ve been arrested and detained will get a jury of their peers, or will the jury be made up of mainly DC residents?

[Da Coyote]

“Diverse”, for a judge selected by Dorkbama the Muslim eunuch quota idiot, means that the jury member must have killed at least one white, beat up a few other honkies, and have the intellect of a CNN “talent”.

[GOP Poet]

Hmmmmmm. I thought justice was blind—including color blind.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

Judges like her are truly racist.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

Judges like her are truly racist. They are true Obama appointees obviously.

[aimhigh]

The Government has failed to meet its burden by coming forward with evidence rebutting the presumption . .

In other words, the liberal government let the other side win.

[Chewbarkah]

“the indictment was handed down in Westchester County, not in Manhattan, where the alleged crime took place.”

I thought it was normal to indict and try cases in the county where the crime occurred. Are the DA’s going out of Manhattan because they can’t get indictments there regardless of the evidence?

[Bob434]

So they let Chauvin go?

[Regulator]

“Hispanic” is not a race.

It’s a linguistic cohort. Somewhat ethnic, but then what genes do Spanish speaking Mayans share with lily white Iberians?

The woman is a Spaniard Supremacist. They seethe with hatred for the Gringos and drool about replacing us on this continent as the rulers. So she is just carrying out her gang’s imperative: try to insert themselves as legally unique and superior to the hated WASPs.

But race? She don’t like the brown / black people. She wants to RULE them. And us.

The Spaniard never quits. In their culture, being relentless is EVERYTHING.

[doc maverick]

Obviously, SCOTUS will do the regime’s bidding because they have been threatened with their numbers being doubled and they don’t want that to happen.

[sport]

This is what we have became. We are now a Nation of idiots Governed by Fools. And we are happily smoking our Medical Marijuana.

[liberalh8ter]

Peers? So does this mean they need to assemble a jury of gang members?

[Texas resident]

grand jury pool in White Plains...

Well there is the problem. The city’s name is racist.

So is the song, “White Christmas”

[zaxtres]

It looks to me that Judge Torres is using an invented term, Latinx” to invoke an invented right.

---

She didn’t invent a right. It’s long been precedent that the jury by one’s peers is a Constitutional right afforded by the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791.

jury of one’s peers
n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which “peer” means an “equal.” This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

This went awry in before and during the Civil Rights movement when white jury members sat in trials of black defendants. Due to their biases of the time, an overwhelming number of innocent black defendants were found guilty. It was the Baston v Kentucky case in the SCOTUS in 1986 that solidified this right in a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell.

The court explained:
The defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire [jury pool] members of the defendant’s race. The defendant may also rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate. Finally, the defendant must show that such facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.

The Court also held that:

A State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposely excluded

A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors

The peremptory challenge occupies an important position in trial procedures

[Wuli]

we need to make a judicial impeachment list