Showing posts with label Jury prejudice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jury prejudice. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Certiorari Denied in Case of Jurors Disqualified Because of Religious Beliefs

Today the Supreme Court denied review in Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney, (certiorari denied, 2/20/2024). In the case a Missouri state appellate court (full text of state court opinion) upheld a trial court's striking of three potential jurors for cause. The suit involved claims against the Department of Corrections by a lesbian employee alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment. The potential jurors were disqualified because of their strongly-held religious views that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality was an important issue in the case. Justice Alito filed a Statement respecting the denial of certiorari indicating that were it not for a complicating state law issue in the case, he would have voted to grant review, saying in part:

Before us, the Department of Corrections argues that these for-cause dismissals were unconstitutional, and I agree that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning raises a very serious and important question that we should address in an appropriate case. The judiciary, no less than the other branches of State and Federal Government, must respect people’s fundamental rights, and among these are the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to the equal protection of the laws. When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights.

Sunday, May 09, 2021

11th Circuit: Juror Who Heard From Holy Spirit Should Not Have Been Removed

In United States v. Brown, (11th Cir., May 6, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, by a vote of 7-4 held that a district court judge abused his discretion in replacing a juror with an alternate in the trial of a former Florida Congresswoman who was convicted on most of the fraud, ethics and tax violation charges against her. The majority summarized:

This appeal requires us to decide whether a district judge abused his discretion by removing a juror who expressed, after the start of deliberations, that the Holy Spirit told him that the defendant, Corrine Brown, was not guilty on all charges. The juror also repeatedly assured the district judge that he was following the jury instructions and basing his decision on the evidence admitted at trial, and the district judge found him to be sincere and credible. But the district judge concluded that the juror’s statements about receiving divine guidance were categorically disqualifying. Because the record establishes a substantial possibility that the juror was rendering proper jury service, the district judge abused his discretion by dismissing the juror. The removal violated Brown’s right under the Sixth Amendment to a unanimous jury verdict. We vacate Brown’s convictions and sentence and remand for a new trial. 

Two concurring and two dissenting opinions were also filed. Judge Rosenbaum's dissent, joined by Judge Wilson and Martin, said in part:

Every judge of this Court agrees on this much: the same rule governs dismissal of both the juror who says his religious authority told him the defendant is not guilty on all charges and the one who says his religious authority told him the defendant is guilty on all charges. So let’s be clear about what we’re really doing today: we are holding that a district judge is powerless to dismiss a juror who, on a record like this one, says the Holy Spirit told him the defendant is guilty on all charges and he trusts the Holy Spirit—even though the judge finds after investigation that the juror is not capable of basing his guilty verdict on the evidence but instead will base his verdict on what he perceives to be a divine revelation.

A 3-judge panel of the 11th Circuit had affirmed the district court's decision. (See prior posting.) Politico reports on the en banc decision. 

Thursday, February 25, 2021

11th Circuit En Banc Hears Oral Arguments In Case of Juror Who Heard From A Higher Being

On Tuesday, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments (audio or full oral arguments) in United States v. Corrine Brown. In the case, a 3-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a juror in the fraud case of former Florida representative Corrine Brown. At issue was a statement made by one of the jurors during deliberations that "A Higher Being told me Corrine Brown was Not Guilty on all charges." (See prior posting.) News4 reports on the oral arguments.

Friday, September 25, 2020

11th Circuit Grants En Banc Review In Case of Religious Statement By Juror

As reported by Florida News Service, yesterday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted en banc review (full text of order) in United States v. Corrine Brown. In the case, a 3-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a juror in the fraud case of former Florida representative Corrine Brown. At issue was a statement made by one of the jurors during deliberations that "A Higher Being told me Corrine Brown was Not Guilty on all charges." (See prior posting.)

Sunday, January 12, 2020

11th Circuit OKs Disqualification of Juror Who Heard From A Higher Being

In United States v. Brown, (11th Cir., Jan. 9, 2020), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a juror in the fraud case of former Florida representative Corrine Brown. At issue was a statement made by one of the jurors during deliberations. He told the other jurors:
A Higher Being told me Corrine Brown was Not Guilty on all charges.
Judge Rosenbaum agreed with the district court that the juror was not capable of reaching a verdict based only on the evidence at trial. Judge Conway concurred specially

Judge Pryor filed a 62-page dissent, saying in part:
One persistent confusion that has plagued this appeal is the notion that a juror’s belief that he has received divine guidance reflects a form of improper outside influence.... This confusion cannot withstand scrutiny. Indeed, it betrays a failure to reflect on the nature of prayer. ...
Juror No. 13’s statement that God had communicated with him described an internal mental event, not an external instruction.
[Thanks to Doug Velardo for the lead.]

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Death-Qualifying Jurors Does Not Infringe Their Free Exercise Rights

In Jackson v. State of Alabama, (AL Ct. Crim. App., Sept. 20, 2019), an Alabama state appeals court in a 135-page opinion dealing with numerous challenges upheld appellant's death sentence.  In one portion of the opinion (pp. 34-40), the court, relying extensively on precedent from other federal district courts, concluded that death-qualifying prospective jurors does not violate the jurors' free exercise of religion.

Thursday, July 04, 2019

Confrontation Clause Satisfied Even Though Muslim Witness Had Face Partly Covered

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Smarr, (PA Super., July 3, 2019), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that the Confrontation Clauses of the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions were not violated when a trial court allowed the sole eye-witness to a murder to testify with a colorful scarf covering her mouth and nose. The witness, a Muslim, said that she wears a face covering on Fridays, when she goes to religious services, and whenever else she feels like it. She said she was wearing it to court out of concern for her safety. Focusing on the importance of protecting the witness' free exercise rights, the court said in part:
No precedent has established that a witness’s clothing or accessories renders a physical, in-court confrontation other than face-to-face, particularly where the clothing does not obstruct the witness’s eyes, and we decline to do so under the facts of this case. We therefore hold that Smarr’s right to be brought face-to-face with his accuser was satisfied....
[T]he jury could view Brown’s eyes, and to some extent, her facial expressions; her posture, her gestures, and her body language; hear her tone of voice, her cadence, and her hesitation; and observe any nervousness, frustration, or hostility.

Friday, May 17, 2019

6th Circuit Orders New Trial Because of Prosecutors' References To Religion

In United States v. Acosta, (6th Cir., May 15, 2019), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a new trial to two defendants who had been convicted of drug violations. The vacating of defendants' convictions stemmed in large part from the prosecutor's comments at trial regarding the religious practices of one of the defendants. The prosecutor questioned the defendant about a shrine to Jesus Malverde found in his home. Malverde is a folk saint of drug traffickers. Then, in closing, the prosecutor said to the jury:
Another shocking thing yesterday was the defendant, Mr. Morales’ [sic] testimony. Thou shall not have any Gods before me. I’ve never ever seen a defendant admit to worshiping Malverde. I’m not going to call it a saint, I’m going to use the word and call it a deity. He worships a deity . . . . He prayed for protection from police. He prays that he doesn’t get caught.
... I wonder how many prayers he has said to Malverde before he walked into the courtroom yesterday. I wonder if what’s going through his mind this morning was, I’m going to say another prayer for protection from the jurors of Central Kentucky....
Luis Morales [sic], the worshiper of a deity of a drug trafficking entity who prays for protection from police, prosecutors, court systems and juries. Is he entitled to any credibility for what he said? No, not at all.
Louisville Courier-Journal reports on the decision.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Murder Convictions Reversed Because Jehovah's Witness Juror Excluded

In Pacchiana v. State of Florida, (FL App., Feb. 14, 2018), a Florida appeals court reversed and remanded for a new trial the murder conviction of defendant.  In companion decisions the convictions of Pacchiana's co-defendants were also reversed: Michael Bilotti v. Florida and in Christin Bilotti v. Florida .

In the case, defense counsel raised a Batson challenge to the state's peremptory strike of an African American member of the jury pool.  The state responded that its race-neutral reason for the challenge was that the juror is a Jehovah's Witness.  The prosecution urged that members of that religion often believe that only God judges and they cannot judge.  In the court's primary opinion, Judge Levine wrote:
the state did not provide a “legitimate” race-neutral reason..... During voir dire, the potential juror stated that she would follow the law and gave no indication that she would allow her status as a Jehovah’s Witness to affect her decisionmaking at all. In moving to strike her, the state merely relied on the juror’s membership in a religion without any testimony that it would actually affect her service as a juror, speculating that “any” practicing Jehovah’s Witness would refuse to sit in judgment of others.
Judge Levine went on to conclude that even if this was a valid religion-based challenge, Batson should be extended to religion-based peremptory challenges, as well as racial ones.  He also concluded that:
striking a potential juror from jury service based solely on membership in a religion, no matter what the juror says during voir dire, is an impermissible “religious test” in violation of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
Chief Judge Gerber concurred only in part, concluding that religion is a race-neutral response to a Batson challenge. However he agreed with Judge Levine's other conclusions that made this an impermissible religion-based challenge.  Judge May dissented, concluding that Batson should not be extended to religion-based challenges.  She also concluded that there were sufficient additional reasons given for the challenge to make it race-neutral. However in co-defendant Christin Bilotti's case, she would remand for resentencing.  The Sun Sentinel reports on the decision.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

New Trial Sought After Juror Dismissal For Hearing Holy Spirit

As previously reported, last month a Florida federal court jury found former Congresswoman Corrine Brown  guilty on 18 counts of fraud and corruption after the judge removed a juror who insisted the Holy Spirit had told him Congresswoman Brown was not guilty on all charges. Now a motion for a new trial has been filed (full text).  The motion in United States v. Brown, (MD FL, filed 6/8/2017), argues:
There is a substantial possibility the holy spirit was actually the juror's own mind or spirit telling him that one or more witnesses had not testified truthfully.
[Thanks to Ray Treadwell for the lead.]

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Juror Removed For Religious Statement Made In Deliberations

According to FirstCoast News, in a Jacksonville, Florida federal district courtroom earlier this month, a jury found former Congresswoman Corrine Brown  guilty on 18 counts of fraud and corruption. The jury's decision came a day after the judge removed one of the jurors  (referred to as Juror 13) from the panel. The judge took action against Juror 13 after another juror sent the judge a letter complaining about Juror 13's religious remarks. Near the beginning of deliberations, Juror 13 told the others that the Holy Spirit had told him Congresswoman Brown was not guilty on all charges. The full transcript of the judge's questioning Juror 13 before deciding to remove him from the jury makes interesting reading.

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Federal Court In Habeas Action Finds California Prosecutor's Use of Biblical References Prejudicial

In Roybal v. Davis, (SD CA, Dec. 2, 2015), a California federal district court granted penalty phase habeas corpus relief in a petition brought by a defendant who had been sentenced to death by a California state jury in the robbery and stabbing murder of a 65-year old woman.  The district court found that the California Supreme Court was "objectively unreasonable" in concluding that improper argument by the prosecutor during the penalty phase of the murder trial was harmless error and not prejudicial to the defendant. (People v. Roybal,  (1998)). At issue were Biblical references made by the prosecutor.  The district court, in a very lengthy opinion dealing with numerous other objections as well, said in part:
It is without question that the prosecutor improperly urged the jurors to impose a death sentence on Petitioner based on biblical law.... [T]he prosecutor did not stop with simply drawing parallels between state law and biblical law which, in itself, would have been misconduct. He went on to quote directly from the Bible, asserting that biblical text demanded a specific punishment for murder.... Such argument could only have been meant to urge the jurors to find justification for a death sentence in biblical text, authority well outside the penal code, and to subvert or frustrate their consideration of the proper sentencing factors under state law....
Here, the prosecutor's unambiguous, repeated, and carefully timed improper exhortations to the jury to apply biblical law diminished the jurors' sense of personal decision-making for the imposition of the death penalty. In so many words, the jury was informed that the Bible requires a murderer who kills with iron (i.e. knife) to himself be put to death. The prosecutor's improper argument presented an intolerable danger that the jury minimized its role as factfinder and encouraged jurors to vote for death because it was God's will, and not that the imposition of the death penalty complied with California and federal law.....
As discussed above, the California Supreme Court correctly found that the prosecutor's religious argument was misconduct and fell outside the bounds of both state and federal law, but unreasonably found that the comments were not prejudicial.
San Diego Union Tribune reports on the decision.

Friday, February 06, 2015

Newly Added Religious Items Must Be Covered Before Hernandez Jury Visit

Jurors in the murder trial of former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez are scheduled to visit Hernandez's home today. Hernandez is charged in the 2013 murder of Odin Lloyd.  AP reports that when the prosecutor took a tour through the house yesterday ahead of the jury visit, he found that religious items (as well as career memorabilia) had been added in several rooms, along with furniture to hold them.  Bristol County Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh ruled yesterday that anything added to the house since 2013 must be removed or covered before the jury's visit which is designed to see the house as it existed at the time of the killing. The defense has agreed to remove or cover the new items.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Defendant's Failure To Touch Bible During Oath Leads NJ High Court To Remand

In Davis v. Husain, (NJ Sup. Ct., Dec. 23, 2014), the New Jersey Supreme Court remanded a case to the trial court for a different judge to consider whether religious considerations tainted a $12,500 verdict in a sexual harassment suit by a woman against her former employer. As described by the Supreme Court:
After the verdict was rendered and the jury was discharged, but before post-trial motions were argued and the judgment was entered, the trial judge conducted an ex parte discussion with the jurors, which was not recorded. According to the judge, one juror noted during that discussion that she was surprised that defendant had not placed his hand on the Bible before he testified. The judge did not make a record of the juror’s observation, but he did inform counsel as later events reveal.
The court indicated in a footnote:
Husain’s certification, submitted during post-verdict motion practice, indicates that Husain’s action was based on his religious beliefs. He states that it is his religious belief that the left hand should never be placed on a holy book.” He also states that he is “of Indian descent and the left hand is not used for any official purpose because of our culture.” 
The Supreme Court also banned for the future any post-verdict communications between a trial judge and jurors outside the presence of counsel. New Jersey Advance Media reports on the decision.