It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(CN) - "Far reaching" and "mischievous" consequences for the gay-marriage debate will arise after the 9th Circuit let stand a ruling that found it discriminatory to pass over potential jurors based on their sexual orientation, a dissent Tuesday warns.
Applying an expansive reading of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act, U.S. vs. Windsor, the appellate panel found that judges must apply "heightened scrutiny" to any peremptory strike of a gay juror.
"Windsor requires that classifications based on sexual orientation that impose inequality on gays and lesbians and send a message of second-class status be justified by some legitimate purpose," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the unanimous panel.
Source
"The opinion's unprecedented application of heightened scrutiny to a peremptory strike of a juror who was perceived to be gay bears significant implications for the same-sex marriage debate and for other laws that may give rise to distinctions based on sexual orientation," O'Scannlain wrote in the nine-page dissent. "Indeed, today's opinion is the only appellate decision since United States v. Windsor, to hold that lower courts are 'required by Windsor to apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation for purposes of equal protection.' Such holding is wrong, egregiously so. Because of the danger that district courts will be misled by the opinion's sweeping misinterpretation of Windsor, it is most unfortunate that we denied rehearing en banc."
The racial composition of the jury was strongly influenced by the decision of the prosecution to file the Simpson case in downtown Los Angeles rather than--as is usually the case-- in the judicial district where the crime occurred-- in this case, Santa Monica. Had the case be filed in Santa Monica, the Simpson jury would have been mostly white instead of, as was the case, mostly African-American. With poll data showing that most whites believed Simpson to be guilty and most blacks believing him to be not guilty, the decision to file the case in Santa Monica may have been the biggest mistake the prosecution made. Vincent Bugliosi, the celebrated prosecutor in the Charles Manson case, said the mistake "dwarfed anything the defense did."
originally posted by: FlyersFan
I'm having a VERY tired autoimmune & injury recovery day today, so maybe I'm too foggy to follow ... but could someone explain to me how "mischievous consequences" enters into discussions about things being legal/illegal? That smacks of subjective reasoning to me .... (or did I miss something?)
originally posted by: FlyersFan
I'm having a VERY tired autoimmune & injury recovery day today, so maybe I'm too foggy to follow ... but could someone explain to me how "mischievous consequences" enters into discussions about things being legal/illegal? That smacks of subjective reasoning to me .... (or did I miss something?)
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
This is a dangerous precedent. They are basically saying that peremptory strikes won't be allowed if the person "might be gay", when they are typically allowed for no stated reason, in our courts. This pretty much says that homosexual jury candidates get special treatment, over all the rest.
Source
The current framework makes it exceedingly difficult for judges to reject even the most spurious of peremptory
strikes—a reality that is not lost on trial attorneys.
. Source
When you do have a black juror, you question them at length. And on this little sheet that you have, mark something down that you can articulate later if something happens . . . and question them and say, “Well the woman had a kid about the same age as the defendant and I thought she’d be sympathetic to him,” or “She’s unemployed and I just don’t like unemployed people.” . . .