Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Is No Place Fair or Safe to Be Gay in...
Show More
Loading...
Flag Do_unto_others May 2, 2012 2:35 PM EDT

Attorney’s Office Excluded Gay Jurors in Equality 9 Trial




Source: Attorney’s Office Excluded Gay Jurors in Equality 9 Trial | NBC San Diego



"the San Diego City Attorney’s office challenged one prospective juror after he acknowledged he was gay and dismissed another gay man from the jury pool."


So much for liberty and JUSTICE for ALL in America.
Flag Do_unto_others May 2, 2012 3:44 PM EDT

Discuss.

Flag Abner1 May 2, 2012 5:10 PM EDT

Well, you see, gay people are all biased against straights, but straight people are not biased against gays.  Therefore it is right and proper for everyone to be judged by straights (since their judgment is right and normal), but wrong and improper for anyone to be judged by gays (since their judgment is evil and perverted).  This is not an example of bias, since straights are never biased against gays.  Keep telling yourself that until it makes sense or you have an aneurism - that's an order.


Oy.  *bangs head on table*

Flag Do_unto_others May 2, 2012 5:24 PM EDT

Was that an attempt at humor?

Flag farragut May 2, 2012 5:27 PM EDT

"Discuss."


 


Was that a command?

Flag Do_unto_others May 2, 2012 5:30 PM EDT

No. It was an invitation.

Flag Abner1 May 2, 2012 6:10 PM EDT

Do_Unto_Others wrote:


> Was that an attempt at humor?


Yep, albeit so outraged that it probably wasn't very funny.  Sometimes you have to laugh because otherwise you'll have to cry ...

Flag mainecaptain May 2, 2012 6:38 PM EDT

May 2, 2012 -- 6:10PM, Abner1 wrote:


Do_Unto_Others wrote:


> Was that an attempt at humor?


Yep, albeit so outraged that it probably wasn't very funny.  Sometimes you have to laugh because otherwise you'll have to cry ...




This I agree with. Because so many times I do want to cry.


bigots are bastards

Flag solfeggio May 2, 2012 6:58 PM EDT

I was surprised that this happened in California, which we have always thought was one of the most liberal, open-minded states.


However, it should be noted that the judge scolded the prosecutor for dismissing the gay juror.


www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...


However, there was a similar case in New York last year in which a gay man said he couldn't be impartial in a jury trial because he was a gay second-class citizen:


blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/2011/0...


But, what is surprising, is that apparently it is legal to discriminate against LGBT jurors.


www.queerty.com/did-you-know-its-legal-t...


 


 

Flag mountain_man May 2, 2012 9:37 PM EDT

He was dismissed because he could not be impartial, not because he was gay. This was about the art of jury selection, not gay rights. If he was dismissed from a trial that had nothing to do with protesters being arrested during a demonstration about gays, then that would be wrong.


At least that what I think it was about.

Flag BDboy May 3, 2012 6:25 AM EDT

May 2, 2012 -- 9:37PM, mountain_man wrote:


He was dismissed because he could not be impartial, not because he was gay. This was about the art of jury selection, not gay rights. If he was dismissed from a trial that had nothing to do with protesters being arrested during a demonstration about gays, then that would be wrong.


At least that what I think it was about.




 


>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing.

Flag mindis1 May 7, 2012 9:51 AM EDT

May 2, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Do_unto_others wrote:



Attorney’s Office Excluded Gay Jurors in Equality 9 Trial




Source: Attorney’s Office Excluded Gay Jurors in Equality 9 Trial | NBC San Diego


"the San Diego City Attorney’s office challenged one prospective juror after he acknowledged he was gay and dismissed another gay man from the jury pool."


So much for liberty and JUSTICE for ALL in America.



Well, DUO, the first sentence of your article notes that a judge ordered a new trial for the “Equality 9” after the prosecutor’s exclusion of a single juror. What more “liberty and justice” for someone do you ask for in this case?


 


May 2, 2012 -- 6:58PM, solfeggio wrote:


But, what is surprising, is that apparently it is legal to discriminate against LGBT jurors.


www.queerty.com/did-you-know-its-legal-t...



It is a crude falsehood to claim that “it is legal to discriminate against LGBT jurors.” The OP article itself is about a case in which a judge ordered a new trial merely because the prosecutor excluded a single juror who apparently stated that he “was gay”.  


The Queerty article notes Dibble’s bill in Minnesota, but does not quote it. The article then informs us that “gays and lesbians were excluded from Dan White’s trial for the murders of Harvey Milk and George Moscone”. This trial was at a time when people were excluded from juries on the basis of race and gender.  


Let us quote the first paragraph of J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994), which is one of the progeny of Batson v. Kentucky (1986):


In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), this Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs the exercise of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor in a criminal trial. The Court explained that, although a defendant has "no right to a `petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race,'" id., at 85, quoting Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 305 (1880), the "defendant does have the right to be tried by a jury whose members are selected pursuant to nondiscriminatory criteria." Id., at 85-86. Since Batson, we have reaffirmed repeatedly our commitment to jury selection procedures that are fair and nondiscriminatory. We have recognized that, whether the trial is criminal or civil, potential jurors, as well as litigants, have an equal protection right to jury selection procedures that are free from state-sponsored group stereotypes rooted in, and reflective of, historical prejudice. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991); Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. ___ (1992).


caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p...


In the past 20 years has there been a case that was, contrary to this decision, “discriminatory” against “gays and lesbians”? I do not know of one. Apparently Dibble’s bill is not intended to solve any actual problem.


J.E.B. is particularly relevant here in that it extends the Batson holding to the issue of sex discrimination; at least one federal court has found discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be related to sex discrimination.


There is no law or judicial ruling that either mandates or allows a discriminatory voir dire process. The claim that “it is legal to discriminate against LGBT jurors” is obviously made in ignorance of case law.

Flag REteach May 7, 2012 2:08 PM EDT

Should be a completely asexual jury. Hook the jury pool up to sensors and only those who react to neither gay nor straight porn can serve.

Flag Do_unto_others May 7, 2012 2:56 PM EDT

May 7, 2012 -- 2:08PM, REteach wrote:


Should be a completely asexual jury. Hook the jury pool up to sensors and only those who react to neither gay nor straight porn can serve.





And here I thought the ultimate was a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not too many asexual folk out there these days.

Flag Swim4fun May 8, 2012 11:45 PM EDT

May 2, 2012 -- 9:37PM, mountain_man wrote:


He was dismissed because he could not be impartial, not because he was gay. This was about the art of jury selection, not gay rights. If he was dismissed from a trial that had nothing to do with protesters being arrested during a demonstration about gays, then that would be wrong.


At least that what I think it was about.




I agree with that. This is not the issue about the gay but the art of jury selection.

Flag mountain_man May 8, 2012 11:54 PM EDT

May 8, 2012 -- 11:45PM, Swim4fun wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 9:37PM, mountain_man wrote:

He was dismissed because he could not be impartial, not because he was gay. This was about the art of jury selection, not gay rights. If he was dismissed from a trial that had nothing to do with protesters being arrested during a demonstration about gays, then that would be wrong.


At least that what I think it was about.


I agree with that. This is not the issue about the gay but the art of jury selection.


Yeah, but if you think about it for a bit.... it's still not right.

Flag REteach May 9, 2012 9:29 PM EDT

May 7, 2012 -- 2:56PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 7, 2012 -- 2:08PM, REteach wrote:


Should be a completely asexual jury. Hook the jury pool up to sensors and only those who react to neither gay nor straight porn can serve.





And here I thought the ultimate was a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not too many asexual folk out there these days.



If gays can't be unbiased, why assume straights can be?  

Flag mainecaptain May 10, 2012 12:55 PM EDT

May 9, 2012 -- 9:29PM, REteach wrote:


May 7, 2012 -- 2:56PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 7, 2012 -- 2:08PM, REteach wrote:


Should be a completely asexual jury. Hook the jury pool up to sensors and only those who react to neither gay nor straight porn can serve.





And here I thought the ultimate was a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not too many asexual folk out there these days.



If gays can't be unbiased, why assume straights can be?  



I am sure straights can't, or maybe pretend straights, someone is making all these laws against gay rights, who could that be?????

Flag Merope May 18, 2012 12:48 PM EDT

This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook