Gay Jurors: Dismissal Case Pending In California

PASADENA, Calif. -- A federal appeals case pending in California could determine if trial lawyers should be barred from dismissing potential jurors because they are gay.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday in Pasadena that challenge a Los Angeles prosecutor's decision to strike a lesbian from the jury in an assault case against a gay federal inmate.

Inmate Daniel Osazuwa says he hugged a guard who was homophobic and he overreacted. The guard fell and Osazuwa landed on him.

A public defender argues the trial judge erred in dismissing a lesbian from the jury, but a prosecutor says she was let go for another legitimate reason.

___

Comments

[gypsy508]

04:50 PM on 08/07/2011

I don't know California laws but some states prosecutors and defense lawyers can bump x amount of jurors for any reason they want and all kinds of biases come into play so can't see why this is any different.

[FrenchKissed]

12:19 PM on 08/06/2011

I'm surprised half the jury pool wasn't gay that day. When I was on jury selection for a solicitation of prostitution case there were so many people who thought prostitution should be legalized that the judge was pretty pissed by the time they got to me. I had to explain that my heart started racing the minute I heard them say 647b, and that I really wanted to serve on that jury for him to believe me. All through the lunch break my plan was to lie about it, but when it was my turn I was too scared to perjure myself, and my conscience got the better of me.

But to answer your question, yes, I do think a lawyer should be able to dismiss someone for being gay depending on how it came to be known. I don't think they should be able to ask who's gay and then get rid of anyone who answers in the affirmative. But I'm guessing they were all asked how they felt about homosexuals so that the prosecution and defense could pick off homophobes and gay rights activists if that's what they chose to go on. The fact that she chose to reveal her sexual orientation made it fair game for them to dismiss for. If they had gone around asking who was gay and then picking off anyone who said yes, then I'd consider it as wrong as picking off all the black jurors on a case with a black defendant.

[Atwill]

09:26 AM on 08/06/2011

An inmate should never touch a guard. I work in a prison, and this is a big no no. We are not even allowed to shake hands with them. The inmate is wrong, even if he was doing this to make a point and even if the guard was a jerk. You can say things to put the guard in place, but do not touch. I know there are many homophobic guards and i have had to put some in their place, but there are also gay guards and i know a few.

[lita m]

08:12 PM on 08/05/2011

So what, exactly, was that "other" legitimate reason? The public defender (pretender?) should have been required to tell us what it was.

[furtura1]

08:05 PM on 08/05/2011

just stacking the jury to get a conviction, so much for a jury of your peers

[FTracy3]

07:14 PM on 08/05/2011

Absolutely not. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to be tried before a jury of their queers.

[ruscle]

05:42 PM on 08/05/2011

Then it follows that jurors can also be dismissed for being straight. Then who's left.

[iconico62]

05:17 PM on 08/05/2011

Take this one step further: if the defendant is blond, reject anyone who is not blond. How stupid is this? What has sexuality got to do with justice?

[Just walkin the dog here]

04:19 PM on 08/05/2011

PASADENA, Calif. -- A federal appeals case pending in California could determine if trial lawyers should be barred from dismissing potential jurors because they are black.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday in Pasadena that challenge a Los Angeles prosecutor's decision to strike a black woman from the jury in an assault case against a black federal inmate.

Inmate Daniel Smith says he hugged a guard who was racist and he overreacted. The guard fell and Smith landed on him.

A public defender argues the trial judge erred in dismissing a black person from the jury, but a prosecutor says she was let go for another legitimate reason.

Just some minor editing to give the question some perspective. Now, how does that sound to you?

[rsheeran]

03:48 PM on 08/05/2011

A person's sexuality is irrelevant to determining if a person is guilty or innocent of a crime. Therefore, not something that should prevent them from serving on a jury in ANY case. That being said, there are many reasons you many not be selected for a jury. Non of which should be taken personally.

[deepimpact2]

11:10 AM on 08/09/2011

That's not the point. Attorneys strike potential jurors all the time for this kind of thing. I don't know why people always have to act so brand new when it comes to homosexuals. That's just how the game is played. Each side can strike potential jurors that they feel would be harmful to their case or that are so obviously biased to one side that they would be unable to render a just verdict.

[rockysparks]

03:00 PM on 08/05/2011

I'm glad you're reconsidering the importance of gay people serving on juries, although it wasn't my intention to try and convince or persuade you or anyone else of anything. I was just stating how I felt about it.

Really, in this country, we are not required to do much of anything: Pay taxes and serve on juries are the main things. Voting is an optional right. We're required to have auto insurance if we want to drive a car, but we can always choose not to drive. And military service is no longer mandatory. So to me, serving on a jury, and giving someone a fair hearing is a small price to ask.

[Milash]

02:39 PM on 08/05/2011

How small do homophobes want their world to be?

[sonjasmom]

02:17 PM on 08/05/2011

If she said she couldn't be fair, she would get dinged, or if her profession, or her clothing, or her past activities, or her answers caused her to be stereotyped as pro- or anti- prosecution, she'd get dinged. I've never heard of a judge asking all the prospective jurors if they are gay.

[JScott]

02:43 PM on 08/05/2011

I never had either. But the cases they asked a panel on had nothing to do with sexual orientation. And attorneys can excuse a potential juror for just about anything, and hate to say it after being on many panels I kinda know what to answer to get excused from being on a jury, so then I just have to go on jury duty for 1 day, instead of potentially getting picked and having to be on a trial for 2 weeks or so or worse yet on a OJ or Caylee type trial-NO THANKS.

[rockysparks]

01:14 PM on 08/05/2011

That's like saying women can't sit on a rape trial jury if the victim is a woman. Or that men would be predisposed to acquit an accused rapist. Or black people can't sit on a jury when the defendant is black.

I would like to know what the alleged "other reasons" were for the gay person's dismissal from the jury.

[Cakey4814]

01:57 PM on 08/05/2011

You just wrote what I was thinking so nothing to add except i'd like to know the "other reasons" also..

[rockysparks]

02:04 PM on 08/05/2011

There are legit reasons for dismissing a juror --- one time I was part of the pool jurors called to sit on an Iowa cattle rustling cases --- no kidding; the defendant was a deaf-mute on top of everything else. Turned out one of the people on the witness list was the defense attorney, who had represented me in a labor dispute against a former employer; another attorney helped me with the adoption of my son; and the prosecutor went to my church. The judge weighed all this and graciously dismissed me, saying, "Thank you for your service today, sir. Is there ANY attorney in this county that you don't know personally?"

So I suppose it's entirely possible that the juror was dismissed for reasons other than sexual orientation. But if sexual orientation played ANY part of the decision, it should not have.

[lacasarosada]

01:59 PM on 08/05/2011

if being gay means i'll never have to serve on a jury again i'm all for that. i have a problem with gays not being able to donate blood. but getting out of jury duty.... bring it!

[rockysparks]

02:16 PM on 08/05/2011

Serving on a jury is an inconvenience, sometimes. I've had to do it several times --- actually been the jury foreman more than once. But I take the attitude that I know what it's like to be judged, and anytime I am required to do so for another person, I know I will do my best to overcome my prejudices and hear all sides to the case.

My mother was an executive secretary for many years and took great notes on any meeting she attended. She was never called for jury duty until she was in her late seventies, and she came prepared with yellow legal pads and sharpened pencils, just in case she was called to serve. When she was finally questioned as a potential juror, she was politely dismissed. She waited around for a break in the trial and asked the young prosecutor, "Why was I dismissed?" (This was a small rural community where everyone knew each other.) His reply? "Why, ma'am, we didn't want to tire you out; this trial could go on several days."

Slowly, Mother climbed on her broomstick, flew up and down the halls of the courthouse and landed on the prosecutor, screaming about age discrimination. After finally calming down, she went home and called the prosecutor's mother, who was a friend of hers at the local senior citizen's center. The prosecutor's mother was infuriated, too, and the poor man got another earful from another angry old lady that evening.

[Steve1976]

07:15 PM on 08/05/2011

Bad citizenship!