Peremptory Challenges

It is also worth to mention that another of the white, male jurors, Henry Idle, was at that moment 27 years old, dropped out of high school after the tenth grade. He has in the past worked as a dishwasher and a fry cook, but he is currently unemployed, and leaves in a not very good neighborhood. These last facts leave no doubt as to whether the prosecutor had been entirely sincere in stating his reasons for challenging Mr. Morris and all other African-Americans. The Defense renewed all of here objections on the record and stated all pertinent inconsistencies found in the state reasons to dismiss multiple African-Americans and women, then the defense moved the court for a mistrial. (R. at 65)

3) Question_ The question in the case boils down to “are state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of “separate yet equal” constitutional or are they in direct or indirect

We find that the case does in fact violate the precedent Batson v. Kentucky which violated the 14th amendment protection clause. First the prosecutor had the intention to get rid of all juries that were black. One of the reasons is that in the prosecutor’s notes, the prosecutor have highlighted and marked with a “B” for anyone who was black. In addition the prosecutor had placed all of the black jurors on the “Definite NOs” list. On the list that the prosecutor had no white jurors were on the list. Finally the prosecutor had the names of the black jurors circled on his list. All of this violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment where everyone should be treated equally regardless of their

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

The landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson is a Constitutional case in which it had to be decided who the constitution meant when it said "all men are created equal." Brown v. The Board of Education is the reason for diversity in schools. These cases are very important to our constitution and to the people being governed by the constitution because it decided the fate of our nation and of our people. They show the degree of federalism and how much attention the government devoted to it. The amendments in the constitution do not apply to a simple race nor ethnicity. Throughout history laws have been made and destroyed at the cost of colored

Since Walter McMillan’s exoneration, decades of efforts towards equality and affirmative action have systematically set up a society geared to help people from disenfranchised groups. True equality in the eyes of the law can be more important than in the court of law, and this fact begs the question, should race and class of an accused criminal be considered in a court

There have been many cases before the United States Supreme Court similar to Mary Hamilton’s, including one that is currently pending. In an ongoing case, Fisher v. University of Texas (2012), Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian female, filed a lawsuit against the University because she was denied admission. Fisher argued that the University was discriminating in its selections based on race. The University argued that the factor of race in the admissions process was solely in the interest of promoting educational diversity. If the admissions of a school call for measures to be taken to ensure diversity, then the policies in place must be reviewed under a standard of strict scrutiny to determine if they are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest (oyez.org). In Fisher v. University of Texas, the examination of strict scrutiny was not sufficiently conducted and is going to be argued once more on December 9, 2015. In this situation, using the factor of race in an admissions process is

“The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Discrimination within the judicial system is most pernicious because it is ‘a stimulant to the race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to [black citizens] that equal justice, which the law aims to secure to all others.’” (72 A.B.A.J. 68, July, 1986) With the Court’s ruling new standards were set that required the defendant to show: --That they are members of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendants’ race --The defendants may rely on the fact that peremptory challenges are a jury selection practice which allow those who are minded to discriminate to do so --That these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. (Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 [1986])

It is the right of every citizen in this nation to have his or her case decided by a fair and impartial jury. The selection of the jury panel is one of great importance and one that can have a great effect on the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is obvious that the attorneys have a

According to "The O.J. Simpson Trial: The Jury" One example of ethnicity-based jury nullification was O.J. Simpson. This case was a very high profile case of racial disparity. Because of this it made the prosecutor and the defense attorney very difficult to find suitable jurors to hear this case. O.J Simpson was a black man accused of killing his wife who was white. Not only did it cause major issues about racial disparities, but the chances of obtaining a conviction for which he was could prove impossible.

In modern-day America the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is controversial because there is substantial evidence confirming both individual and systemic biases. While there is reason to believe that there are discriminatory elements at every step of the judicial process, this treatment will investigate and attempt to elucidate such elements in two of the most critical judicial junctures, criminal apprehension and prosecution.

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

Petitioner claims the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eight Amendment were violated. A statistical analysis provides evidence of systemic racial bias in Georgia’s judicial system. Standards of proof set by Appeals court are unobtainable and counter to prior precedent. Intention to discriminate is unnecessary if results are discriminatory.

Please describe how you have prepared for your intended major, including your readiness to succeed in your upper-division courses once you enroll at the university.