Liberals Want to Investigate Jurors for Racial Bias After Guilty Verdicts Come In

0
Share

equal justice

If liberals win the next election, forget about the law, especially consider the decisions that will come down from the Supreme Court. PC will run roughshod over the law.

Investors reports that several liberal groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, are backing a major lawsuit that aims to subject jurors to investigation for racial bias after they convict criminals.

This would allow defense lawyers to challenge convictions based on anyone’s idea of bias. Liberal judges would be right there to overturn the decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the landmark case of illegal immigrant Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado that could make this possible.

Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez is a convicted criminal who had sexual contact with two teenage girls and who claims his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated because a juror was biased against illegal immigrants. The evidence against him is overwhelming and he’s guilty.

None of that matters if he wins this case. This is criminal minority privilege to the nth degree.

A juror in this case was alleged to have made anti-Mexican statements before finding Pena Rodriguez guilty. It would not have changed the verdict and a prejudiced person can reach a non-prejudiced verdict.

A similar case was taken up in 1987.

In a 5-4 ruling, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion rejecting calls for a hearing to explore allegations of misconduct by jurors during a trial. That case involved alcohol, not racial bias.

“There is little doubt that post-verdict investigation into juror misconduct would in some instances lead to the invalidation of verdicts reached after irresponsible or improper juror behavior. It is not at all clear, however, that the jury system could survive such efforts to perfect it,” O’Connor wrote.

Bias needs to be rooted out during jury selection, not after.

If this case succeeds, race-baiters will have a field day. Where would it end? Could they hire investigators to explore the background of each juror after a verdict? Of course they could.

Imagine the pressure on a juror who knows if they reach a guilty verdict of a so-called minority that they could be investigated? All they have to do is tar and feather one white juror and the message will be sent.

Keep the following in mind when you cast your ballot in November – we are one justice away from fundamentally transforming our entire system of justice.

Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. The average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs at about 75. These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.

Think about that… 7-2.

If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. And 7-2 decisions will hold up much better than 5-4 decisions which seem to be lacking in mandate.

Supremes Take Up Case That Could Open Door To Race-Baiting Jurors

Share