rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) (05/31/91)
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that bilingual citizens could be barred from jurors if their ability could make them skeptical of the official translation. The ruling was made over a murder case in which Dionisio Hernandez was found guilty of murder by a jury from which bilingual Hispanics were excluded. Latino rights lawyers filed suit for racial discrimination against the two jurors who were disqualified, citing the possibility that such exclusions could limit the participation of Latinos in jury trials. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court ruled that the prosecutor's rejection of the jurors was npot racially motivated, and that it was legal to exclude them because of their ability to give independent interpretations of the evidence. Writing for four members of the Majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that the ruling "does not imply that the exclusion of bilinguals from jury service is wise, or that it is Constitutional in all cases." However, the scope of the decision was not limited solely to the Hernandez case. [source of information: The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5.29.91, which did not offer a list of the majority members who signed Kennedy's opinion. Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun; they argued that the prevailing argument "was insufficient to dispel the existing inference of racial animus."] Grouse on: No consideration seems to have been made of the rights of jurors to examine or question evicdence and testimony given. The only knowledge a juror should have that would cause them to be excluded is that which concerns the specific events in the case. The Supreme Court has ruled that a fundamental need of the judicial process - the ability of jurors to study the case - may be limited by the prosecution. Such a Court would seem hostile to the Fully Informed Juries Act, by allowing jurors with definitive skills (language, analytical ability, computer skills, etc.) to be excluded from hearing the details of the case. What fate would the FIJA have if "expert jurors" may be barred? Rogue Winter | "The truth knocks on the door and you say, rogue@cellar.uucp | "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so uunet!cellar!rogue | it goes away. Puzzling." Cellar 215/3369503 | -Robert Pirsig (quoted in Zen_To_Go, Jon Winokur)
karn@epic..bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (05/31/91)
You don't understand. Lawyers want jurors who are as ignorant and naive as possible. They don't want people who can think critically and independently, because such jurors make life more difficult for them. This came out in the Robert Morris trial - both sides went out of their way to exclude jurors who knew ANYTHING about computers. The rather lame reasoning given for this was that they wanted the jurors to concentrate on the moral issues involved, and not to get sidetracked by the technical details. Phil
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (06/01/91)
In article <1qes34w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: >On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that bilingual citizens could be barred >from jurors if their ability could make them skeptical of the official >translation. > Such a Court would seem hostile to the Fully Informed Juries Act, by >allowing jurors with definitive skills (language, analytical ability, >computer skills, etc.) to be excluded from hearing the details of the case. >What fate would the FIJA have if "expert jurors" may be barred? I'm not in the legal profession, so please excuse any mistakes I make.... Isn't it already the case that the lawyers may exclude jurors for many reasons, some of which would actually make them *better* jurors? From your summary of the decision, it sounds like all the Supreme Court was being asked to rule on was whether this particular exclusion was racially motivated. They decided that it wasn't, and since there are no other rules that prohibit this type of exclusion it was permitted. In this case, I can understand the motivation of the Court. Bilingual jurors are hearing a slightly different case than the one that is recorded on the official, translated transcript. And if the lawyers are depending on the translation, they may not realize what the jurors are hearing, and subtle distinctions may be important points in a case. In this case, it was the prosecution that wanted the jurors barred, in which case it seems like a problem they should be stuck with. But what if it were a court-appointed defense attorney that were prevented from excluding a bilingual juror, and therefore didn't understand all the testimony; in this case, the defendent's only recourse would be to try to convince another court that he received an unfair trial due to the assignment of an incompetent PD, right? -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
mattn@netcom.COM (Matthew Nichols) (06/01/91)
>In article <1qes34w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: >>On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that bilingual citizens could be barred >>from jurors if their ability could make them skeptical of the official >>translation. > >> Such a Court would seem hostile to the Fully Informed Juries Act, by >>allowing jurors with definitive skills (language, analytical ability, >>computer skills, etc.) to be excluded from hearing the details of the case. >>What fate would the FIJA have if "expert jurors" may be barred? This ruling is simply insane. Yes, I understand that the primary reason for the ruling was racisim, and I personally don't see racisim as the motivation for the baring of the bi-lingual jurists. Rather, I see something more subtle and insidius: the desire for a quick conviction without regard to determining guilt or innocence. Verbal communication is not an exact science, and all languages have degrees of subtle variation and interpitation. It is ludicrous to ask a trial jury to simply accept the "official" interpitation of the defendants testimony, and the only purpose to ask them to do so would be to subvert our justice system. IMHO, it would be far better to REQUIRE jurists to be bi-lingual in cases where the defendant or plaintiff does not speak english... as well as, perhaps, to requre the Judge to understand the language in question. Perhaps this is just another rambling call for more legislation, but one of the few areas of our Government that we cannot afford to make mistakes in is the judicial system. It is far too important to be allowed to be subverted by self-serving prosocuters with an eye on political advancement. -- ***************************************************************************** Matthew Nichols............................................ mattn@netcom.COM "A man's got to know his limitations." - "Dirty" Harry Callihan ******************************************************************************
shiva@pro-smof.cts.com (System Smof) (06/01/91)
In-Reply-To: message from rogue@cellar.UUCP If they're going to exclude jurors who can analyze evidence, then they should give IQ tests to prospective jurors and accept only those who are mentally retarded. Then they could raid the State Schools and get the mental patients to register to vote; thus increasing the odds of getting a pliable jury. Sounds like mucho fun for one and all. ____________________________________________________________________ / | | \ |SMOF-BBS 512-467-7317 PCP=TXAUS |UUCP: crash!pro-smof!shiva | __|__ | |Proline: shiva@pro-smof |"The World's First Online | \_|_/ | |Internet: shiva@pro-smof.cts.com| Science Fiction Convention"| | | \________________________________|____________________________|______/
rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) (06/01/91)
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: /* excisions, excisions... */ > like a problem they should be stuck with. But what if it were a > court-appointed defense attorney that were prevented from excluding a > bilingual juror, and therefore didn't understand all the testimony; in this > case, the defendent's only recourse would be to try to convince another > court that he received an unfair trial due to the assignment of an > incompetent PD, right? > -- > Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. > > barmar@think.com > {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar I don't think I'm following your reasoning. Just because the defense attorney (or the prosecution) allows a bilingual juror to be seated doesn't mean that there won't be a translator present. The translator will still be needed by the lawyers, the judge, and the other jurors. Language ability has no bearing on the competence of the defense. The purpose of having jurors who are capable of understanding the testimony in its original form is to have someone who can independently corroborate or challenge the official translator, and who is obligated to do so. The probable "solution" that will arise when bilingual jurors are barred will be for the prosecution and defense to each have separate translators, who would constantly object to the "gloss" each is giving to the defendant's testimony. Rogue Winter | "The truth knocks on the door and you say, rogue@cellar.uucp | "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so uunet!cellar!rogue | it goes away. Puzzling." Cellar 215/3369503 | -Robert Pirsig (quoted in Zen_To_Go, Jon Winokur)
max@cellar.UUCP (Maxwell Smart) (06/02/91)
rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: > The purpose of having jurors who are capable of understanding the testimony > in its original form is to have someone who can independently corroborate or > challenge the official translator, and who is obligated to do so. The > probable "solution" that will arise when bilingual jurors are barred will be > for the prosecution and defense to each have separate translators, who would > constantly object to the "gloss" each is giving to the defendant's testimony. Rache, I think that the reason they do this is to avoid a prejudical situation. Immagine the following: A is on trial, B is a spanish-only speaking witness against him, C is a spanish-speaking juror prejudiced in FAVOR of the defendant. There are no other spanish-speaking jurors. In this situation, C could possibly (and without challenge) convince the other jurors that the translator did a poor job and left out something the completely undermines the witnesses testomny. This is usually a situation to be avoided - when one juror has a type of knowledge that cannot be disputed by other jury members because they do not possess that knowledge. They only "fair" way around this is that no one or the jury may be bilingual. Personally, I feel that the alternative, all jurors are bilingual is just as good. However, anything in between, where even one juror can be swayed by the "evidence distortion" I exampled above is undesireable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I think; therefore, I can't be a Socialist." - Thomas Landsberger max@cellar.uucp - A public BBS with optional net access 215-336-9503 HST/V32
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (06/02/91)
In article <8aFV35w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: >barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: >> like a problem they should be stuck with. But what if it were a >> court-appointed defense attorney that were prevented from excluding a >> bilingual juror, and therefore didn't understand all the testimony; in this >> case, the defendent's only recourse would be to try to convince another >> court that he received an unfair trial due to the assignment of an >> incompetent PD, right? >I don't think I'm following your reasoning. Just because the defense >attorney (or the prosecution) allows a bilingual juror to be seated doesn't >mean that there won't be a translator present. The translator will still be >needed by the lawyers, the judge, and the other jurors. Language ability has >no bearing on the competence of the defense. How can the attorney make a case if he doesn't know precisely what the jury is hearing? Yes, there will be a translator present, but the lawyer will be hearing a different translation than that which the bilingual juror is forming internally. Consider the old adage about eskimos having ten words for "snow". An eskimo witness might use one of them, and the official translation might be "snow". However, an eskimo juror would hear the original word, and understand a more specific connotation than that which the attorneys hear. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) (06/02/91)
max@cellar.UUCP (Maxwell Smart) writes: > rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: > > > The purpose of having jurors who are capable of understanding the testimony > > in its original form is to have someone who can independently corroborate o > > challenge the official translator, and who is obligated to do so. The > > probable "solution" that will arise when bilingual jurors are barred will b > > for the prosecution and defense to each have separate translators, who woul > > constantly object to the "gloss" each is giving to the defendant's testimon > > Rache, I think that the reason they do this is to avoid a prejudical > situation. Immagine the following: A is on trial, B is a spanish-only > speaking witness against him, C is a spanish-speaking juror prejudiced in > FAVOR of the defendant. There are no other spanish-speaking jurors. Okay, more information on the case: I thought I mentioned above that there were TWO jurors excluded because they were bilingual. This is somewhat inconsequential, but the odds are lower that BOTH of them could be biased in the defendant's favor. Dionisio Hernandez was convicted of killing his girlfriend, who was also Hispanic. Part of the prosecution's argument before the Supreme Court was that they would have had no objection to Hispanic jurors if they spoke only English. This was believed by the Court as proof that no ethnic discrimination was intended, but that the exclusions were based on the jurors' ability to speak and interpret Spanish. One thing that I wish the Inquirer article had gone into was whether any of the non-Latine jurors selected had any ability to speak Spanish or whether they were asked whether they were bilingual. Rogue Winter | "The truth knocks on the door and you say, rogue@cellar.uucp | "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so uunet!cellar!rogue | it goes away. Puzzling." Cellar 215/3369503 | -Robert Pirsig (quoted in Zen_To_Go, Jon Winokur)
rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) (06/02/91)
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: > Consider the old adage about eskimos having ten words for "snow". An > eskimo witness might use one of them, and the official translation might be > "snow". However, an eskimo juror would hear the original word, and > understand a more specific connotation than that which the attorneys hear. In that case, it becomes more necessary to evaluate the competence and/or bias of the translator. (And while I realise that excisions are nesessary to keep an argument from taking up too much bandwidth - I've excised your article to reply specifically to a certain point - it would have been better to keep the paragraph where I state that a juror has an obligation to the court and the judicial process to reveal that their interpretation is different from the official translation.) Rogue Winter | "The truth knocks on the door and you say, rogue@cellar.uucp | "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so uunet!cellar!rogue | it goes away. Puzzling." Cellar 215/3369503 | -Robert Pirsig (quoted in Zen_To_Go, Jon Winokur)
gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) (06/03/91)
>If they're going to exclude jurors who can analyze evidence, then they >should give IQ tests to prospective jurors and accept only those who are >mentally retarded. Then they could raid the State Schools and get the >mental patients to register to vote; thus increasing the odds of getting a >pliable jury. Sounds like mucho fun for one and all. In Chicago it is well-known that the dead already are registered to vote, and they vote actively. If transportation is arranged, they'd probably make good jurors. Just make sure they don't get on the jury for the trial of their murderer. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
bei@d75.UUCP (bei) (06/04/91)
In article <Z07w32w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: >Part of the prosecution's argument before the Supreme Court was >that they would have had no objection to Hispanic jurors if they spoke only >English. This was believed by the Court as proof that no ethnic >discrimination was intended, but that the exclusions were based on the >jurors' ability to speak and interpret Spanish. What is the central issue here: Fluency in the Spanish language, or fluency in Hispanic culture? There's a Far Side cartoon which shows a dog testifying about his cat-chasing proclivities. The jury, judge, and spectators are all cats. If the dog is entitled to a jury of his peers, there'd be at least one less cat in the jury box. If a cat barks, is it a dog? Putting the animal metaphors aside and getting back to people, is a Hispanic jurist who can't speak a word of Spanish socialized the same way as one raised in a Spanish-speaking or bilingual environment? Is there a difference in their perceptions of morality and society? In their perceptions of law enforcement, of lawyers and judges? I question whether the phrase "a jury of your peers" has much meaning in (to mention two instances) trials with ethnic or technically sophisticated defendants. Give a Hispanic defendant a jury composed of WASP stockbrokers... Give a computer professional a jury of people who have no experience with computers other than years of bad press, of misplaced records, billing errors and IRS audits, and the occasional sensationalist film or news story... A jury of *my* peers speaks *my* language, be it High Clannach or ones and zeroes. -- Bob -- Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. No endorsement of these opinions by Ralph Kirkley Associates or IBM should be inferred. Bob Izenberg [ ] Ralph Kirkley Associates work: 512 838 6311 [ ] bei@rt_trace.austin.ibm.com home: 512 346 7019 [ ] bei@dogface.UUCP
mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) (06/05/91)
bei@d75.UUCP (Bob Izenberg) writes: |rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: |>Part of the prosecution's argument before the Supreme Court was |>that they would have had no objection to Hispanic jurors if they spoke only |>English. This was believed by the Court as proof that no ethnic |>discrimination was intended, but that the exclusions were based on the |>jurors' ability to speak and interpret Spanish. | |What is the central issue here: Fluency in the Spanish language, or |fluency in Hispanic culture? There's a Far Side cartoon which shows I think this question was answered yesterday, by the Supremes. They ruled that jurors cannot be selected/rejected on the basis of race. This leads me to believe the general principle the earlier ruling was that rejection can be based upon "special knowledge", such as language fluency. -- DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that. Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX. | Don't you feel more like (512) 823-3741 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ | you do now MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com | than you did when you started?
pthomas@arecibo.aero.org (Peter L. Thomas) (06/05/91)
In article <3970@d75.UUCP>, bei@d75.UUCP (bei) writes... >In article <Z07w32w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: >>English. This was believed by the Court as proof that no ethnic >>discrimination was intended, but that the exclusions were based on the > >What is the central issue here: Fluency in the Spanish language, or >fluency in Hispanic culture? There's a Far Side cartoon which shows >. . .far side cartoon. . . >back to people, is a Hispanic jurist who can't speak a word of Spanish >socialized the same way as one raised in a Spanish-speaking or >bilingual environment? Is there a difference in their perceptions of >morality and society? In their perceptions of law enforcement, of >lawyers and judges? >I question whether the phrase "a jury of your peers" has much >meaning in (to mention two instances) trials with ethnic or technically >sophisticated defendants. Give a Hispanic defendant a jury composed >of WASP stockbrokers... Give a computer professional a jury of people >who have no experience with computers other than years of bad press, of >misplaced records, billing errors and IRS audits, and the occasional >sensationalist film or news story... A jury of *my* peers speaks *my* >language, be it High Clannach or ones and zeroes. I've often wondered about this. It seems, however, that the judicial system has weighed in on the side of peers are "fellow citizens." After all, you wouldn't want an ex-con who's been charged with committing another crime after release to be able to demand a jury of parolees. (In actual fact, I believe that felons (at least) are excluded from juries, et al.) I don't know if this is the _right_ way to do things. My feeling is that our justice system, with its burden of proof supposedly on the prosecution, would reach that goal more closely if the people who had to decide the accused's guilt or innocence were more likely to be predisposed towards the defendant's point of view. On one side, you pick (as close as you can) "peers of the defendant"--on the other, you pick the neighbors of the victim of the crime (i.e. the community in which the crime happened). I think we're closer to the latter right now-- with the exception of "change of venue." Although this discussion has far-ranging implications in the electronic frontier, (How do we handle "citizens residing in the electronic community :-)?) I've cross-posted to misc.legal and re-directed follow-ups there. --Pete
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Mike Riddle) (06/05/91)
In <8167@awdprime.UUCP> mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) writes: >|What is the central issue here: Fluency in the Spanish language, or >|fluency in Hispanic culture? There's a Far Side cartoon which shows >I think this question was answered yesterday, by the Supremes. >They ruled that jurors cannot be selected/rejected on the basis of race. >This leads me to believe the general principle the earlier ruling was that >rejection can be based upon "special knowledge", such as language fluency. Exactly what they seemed to say. Given the posture of the case, i.e., the lower court never required the prosecution to articulate a race-neutral reason for the exclusion because it felt that the Batson ruling did not appley. The case was remanded for a formal hearing on whether everybody did enough to allow the exclusion, which the Court seeme to okay if it was NOT for race-related reasons. Here is the syllabus from Project Hermes. [anonymous ftp to ftp.cwru.edu, cd hermes/ascii, mget 89-7743*]. README and Index to current online decisions available in the /hermes directory.] [and apologies in advance, hermes seems to have left in some of the atex word-processing commands. The opinion is still readable, however.] ///begin///// EDMONSON v. LEESVILLE CONCRETE CO., INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No.989-7743. Argued January 15, 1991--Decided June 3, 1991 Petitioner Edmonson sued respondent Leesville Concrete Co. in the District Court, alleging that Leesville's negligence had caused him personal injury. During voir dire, Leesville used two of its three peremptory challenges authorized by statute to remove black persons from the prospective jury. Citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.9S. 79, Edmonson, who is black, requested that the court require Leesville to articulate a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory strikes. The court refused on the ground that Batson does not apply in civil proceedings, and the impaneled jury, which consisted of 11 white persons and 1 black, rendered a verdict unfavorable to Edmonson. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a private litigant in a civil case can exercise peremptory challenges without accountability for alleged racial classifications. Held: A private litigant in a civil case may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of race. Pp.93-16. F(a) Race-based exclusion of potential jurors in a civil case violates the excluded persons' equal protection rights. Cf., e.9g., Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.9S. Z, Z-Z. Although the conduct of private parties lies beyond the Constitution's scope in most instances, Leesville's exercise of peremptory challenges was pursuant to a course of state action and is therefore subject to constitutional requirements under the analytical framework set forth in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.9S. 922, 939-942. First, the claimed constitutional deprivation results from the exercise of a right or privilege having its source in state authority, since Leesville would not have been able to engage in the alleged discriminatory acts without 28 U.9S.9C. 91870, which authorizes the use of peremptory challenges in civil cases. Second, Leesville must in all fairness be deemed a government actor in its use of peremptory challenges. Lees ville has made extensive use of government procedures with the overt, significant assistance of the government, see, e.9g., Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 458 U.9S. 478, 486, in that peremptory challenges have no utility outside the jury trial system, which is created and governed by an elaborate set of statutory provisions and administered solely by government officials, including the trial judge, himself a state actor, who exercises substantial control over voir dire and effects the final and practical denial of the excluded individual's opportunity to serve on the petit jury by discharging him or her. Moreover, the action in question involves the performance of a traditional governmental function, see, e.9g., Terry v. Adams, 345 U.9S. 461, since the peremptory challenge is used in selecting the jury, an entity that is a quintessential governmental body having no attributes of a private actor. Furthermore, the injury allegedly caused by Leesville's use of peremptory challenges is aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of governmental authority, see Shelley v. Kramer, 334 U.9S. 1, since the courtroom is a real expression of the government's constitutional authority, and racial exclusion within its confines compounds the racial insult inherent in judging a citizen by the color of his or her skin. Pp.93-13. (b) A private civil litigant may raise the equal protection claim of a person whom the opposing party has excluded from jury service on account of race. Just as in the criminal context, see Powers, supra, all three of the requirements for third-party standing are satisfied in the civil context. First, there is no reason to believe that the daunting barriers to suit by an excluded criminal juror, see id., at Z, would be any less imposing simply because the person was excluded from civil jury service. Second, the relation between the excluded venireperson and the litigant challenging the exclusion is just as close in the civil as it is in the criminal context. See id., at Z. Third, a civil litigant can demonstrate that he or she has suffered a concrete, redressable injury from the exclusion of jurors on account of race, in that racial discrimination in jury selection casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process and places the fairness of the proceeding in doubt. See id., at Z. Pp.913-16. (c) The case is remanded for a determination whether Edmonson has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination under the approach set forth in Batson, supra, at 96-97, such that Leesville would be required to offer race-neutral explanations for its peremptory challenges. P. 16. G895 F. 2d 218, reversed and remanded. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion. -- <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (06/06/91)
In article <1qes34w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: >could limit the participation of Latinos in jury trials. > >In a 6-3 opinion, the Court ruled that the prosecutor's rejection of the >jurors was npot racially motivated, and that it was legal to exclude them >because of their ability to give independent interpretations of the evidence. Aren't jurors SUPPOSED to make "independent interpretations of the evidence"? I don't think this is racist, they just want people to beleive what the govt. is saying as a translation, they can't ask for what the person REALLY said. -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
alien@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Tom von Alten) (06/06/91)
In comp.org.eff.talk, mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) writes: > I think this question was answered yesterday, by the Supremes. > They ruled that jurors cannot be selected/rejected on the basis of race. Yeah, but doesn't Hispanic==White per the latest census??!
max@cellar.UUCP (Maxwell Smart) (06/06/91)
mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) writes: > This leads me to believe the general principle the earlier ruling was that > rejection can be based upon "special knowledge", such as language fluency. Precisely the point I made before. Jurors can be excluded if it is believed that they may have "expert" knowledge which may contradict (or support) the "experts" presented as part of either case. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I think; therefore, I can't be a Socialist." - Thomas Landsberger max@cellar.uucp - A public BBS with optional net access 215-336-9503 HST/V32
gupta@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk (Ashok Gupta) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun1.210400.24855@Think.COM> barmar@think.com writes: > >How can the attorney make a case if he doesn't know precisely what the jury >is hearing? Yes, there will be a translator present, but the lawyer will >be hearing a different translation than that which the bilingual juror is >forming internally. > >Consider the old adage about eskimos having ten words for "snow". An >eskimo witness might use one of them, and the official translation might be >"snow". However, an eskimo juror would hear the original word, and >understand a more specific connotation than that which the attorneys hear. >-- Seems to me we're forgetting two important points (at least) : Firstly, there is a difference between "hearing" and "listening". We all interpret (and colour by our experiences and prejudices) what we hear. All the jurors and lawyers will be doing this. So the question is whether the bilingual juror is subject to *two* opportunities to mis-interpret and if so, whether one should aim to reduce this to one. Being bi-lingual, the juror will hear and interpret for himself/herself *both* the original testimony, from the plaintiff or defendant and the translation, and so be subject to two opportunities to mis-interpret/colour the testimony. That is clear. The question is whether, the elimination is desirable. This brings me to the second point : The bi-lingual juror's ability *informs* his/her decision-making process positively. Understanding language requires one to pick out nuances, accents, inflexions etc. in addition to knowing the many meanings of a single word. Just because most of the jury are disadvantaged in that they can't understand the original testimony, does not mean that those who can should be removed. Two wrongs don't make a right. If the eskimo can grasp a specific connotation, good for him/her and good for the better outcome of the case. The attorney's are the loosers. Women and the black community, have for long pleaded for a balanced jury - representing different sexes and different ethnic groups. The point is, one wants a representative jury and a varied one. - Ashok
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun1.121610.16663@crash.cts.com>, shiva@pro-smof.cts.com (System Smof) writes: > In-Reply-To: message from rogue@cellar.UUCP > > If they're going to exclude jurors who can analyze evidence, then they > should give IQ tests to prospective jurors and accept only those who are > mentally retarded. They try. How hard they try depends on the importance and complexity of the issue. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) (06/07/91)
>>>> > Consider the old adage about eskimos having ten words for "snow". An > eskimo witness might use one of them, and the official translation might be > "snow". However, an eskimo juror would hear the original word, and > understand a more specific connotation than that which the attorneys hear. ---------- More important is that an eskimo juror would have a truer understanding of the testimony than the other jurors. One of the reasons that jurors witness a trial rather than simply read depositions is to pick up on all the body language clues that tell whos lying. Seems to me they should have excluded all the non-bilingul jurors. BTW: eskimos also have 10 names for oil. They all begin with F and end in EXXON. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne