White Jurors Continue to Hammer Black Defendants
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Posted: Dec 29, 2007
The tormenting pattern of white jurors blindly lapping up anything prosecutors and police say about black defendants has been well documented. In 2001, the Chicago Reporter studied dozens of cases in Cook County and found that in nearly 80 percent of the cases a black defendant was far more likely to be convicted when the jury was predominantly white. It made no difference how many times a judge told the jurors that innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Many white jurors ignored it and convicted the black defendant anyway in questionable circumstances. In mock trials and post trial interviews, jury consultants confirmed that white jurors could not shake their ingrained belief that if the defendant was black he or she just had to be guilty. They had made up their mind about the defendant’s guilt even before the first witness was called.
An exhaustive ten-year study by the Capital Jury Project on juror racial attitudes in which more than 1,000 jurors were interviewed in 14 states found that white jurors were far more willing to believe the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than the testimony of black defendants and witnesses. Legions of other studies have also shown that white jurors are more prone to convict black than white defendants. If the defendant is black, and the victim is white, the likelihood is greater still of a conviction.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys are well aware that white jurors are much more likely to convict black defendants than are black jurors. Though it’s expressly forbidden to try to pack juries with white jurors, prosecutors have a storehouse of seemingly race-neutral legal ploys and maneuvers to do just that. And sometimes, they don’t even bother with the ploys.
Click Here To Read Entire Article
Destee
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Posted: Dec 29, 2007
The tormenting pattern of white jurors blindly lapping up anything prosecutors and police say about black defendants has been well documented. In 2001, the Chicago Reporter studied dozens of cases in Cook County and found that in nearly 80 percent of the cases a black defendant was far more likely to be convicted when the jury was predominantly white. It made no difference how many times a judge told the jurors that innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Many white jurors ignored it and convicted the black defendant anyway in questionable circumstances. In mock trials and post trial interviews, jury consultants confirmed that white jurors could not shake their ingrained belief that if the defendant was black he or she just had to be guilty. They had made up their mind about the defendant’s guilt even before the first witness was called.
An exhaustive ten-year study by the Capital Jury Project on juror racial attitudes in which more than 1,000 jurors were interviewed in 14 states found that white jurors were far more willing to believe the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than the testimony of black defendants and witnesses. Legions of other studies have also shown that white jurors are more prone to convict black than white defendants. If the defendant is black, and the victim is white, the likelihood is greater still of a conviction.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys are well aware that white jurors are much more likely to convict black defendants than are black jurors. Though it’s expressly forbidden to try to pack juries with white jurors, prosecutors have a storehouse of seemingly race-neutral legal ploys and maneuvers to do just that. And sometimes, they don’t even bother with the ploys.
Click Here To Read Entire Article
Destee
