|
A cornerstone of the Anglo-American system of justice is the right of all defendants to a trial before a jury of their peers. To ensure that juries deliberate fairly and impartially, prospective jurors are questioned during the selection process (known as voir dire). Individuals with a bias for or against the defendant are to be excluded from jury service. As a further safeguard to protect the integrity of the process, jurors deliberate behind closed doors. Their discussions are not recorded as part of the court transcript of the case.
Recent research into the attitudes of jurors in capital cases has shed a disturbing light on a process which may be far less impartial than the requirements of justice would demand. Since 1990, the Capital Jury Project has undertaken interviews with more than 1,000 jurors who served in death penalty trials in 14 US states. While the results of this massive project are still in the early stages of review, the preliminary findings strongly indicate that former jurors were subject to a wide range of misconceptions and prejudices which may undermine their ability to render reliable verdicts in capital cases.
One preliminary review of the Capital Jury Project data highlighted the racial attitudes which a number of the jurors displayed during the interviews. Although the author of the report cautions that the excerpts are not representative of all jury deliberations, quotes from white jurors about black defendants and victims - given under the guarantee of anonymity - demonstrate that ethnic bias does not always stop at the door of the jury room. The comments included:
"He [the defendant] was a big man who looked like a criminal...He was big and black and kind of ugly. So, I guess when I saw him I thought this fits the part".
"I didn\'t know who they [the victims] were but I was impressed from the trial that there are two definite lifestyles. The black community was entirely different from the way I was raised and the way we lived. The value of life--it\'s totally different".
"...when I heard about the killing, I thought, well, they\'re just wiping each other out again. You know, if they'd been white people, I would\'ve had a different attitude. I\'m sorry that I feel that way."
"Just a typical nigger. Sorry, that\'s the way I feel about it."
As the report notes, "One can only speculate how many other jurors felt similar racial sentiments, but did not express them because of hesitance to give a response that would meet with disapproval".
Some jurors simply lie about their racist views. James Edward Jenkins was accepted on the jury that decided the guilt and sentence of Napoleon Beazley, a juvenile offender now on death row in Texas. During jury selection, the judge asked Jenkins: "I will instruct you not to let bias, prejudice or sympathy play any part in your deliberations...Can you follow that instruction?", to which Jenkins replied that he could. Attorneys representing Beazley later approached Jenkins to discuss the trial. He refused to talk to them, saying "the state said that we don\'t have to say nothin' to nobody." While slamming the door, he added "That nigger got what he deserved".
In a sworn statement to defence attorneys, his wife confirmed that Jenkins has a strong prejudice against African Americans:
"...James is racially prejudiced. I have heard James use many derogatory terms, including the use of the word 'nigger' on more occasions than not when he is talking about black people. I would find it difficult to believe that James could have set his prejudice aside and not let it influence him to some degree [during the trial]."
The US Supreme Court has admitted that racism can play a part in the jury deliberation process. In 1986, the Court ruled that potential jurors could be asked questions about their racial attitudes, since "because of the range of discretion entrusted to a jury in a capital sentencing hearing, there is a unique opportunity for racial prejudice to operate..."
The Court went on to write:
"On the facts of this case, a juror who believes that blacks are violence prone or morally inferior might well be influenced by that belief in deciding whether petitioner\'s crime involved the aggravating factors specified under Virginia law. Such a juror might also be less favourably inclined toward petitioner\'s evidence of mental disturbance as a mitigating circumstance. More subtle, less consciously held racial attitudes could also influence a juror\'s decision in this case. Fear of blacks, which could easily be stirred up by the violent facts of petitioner\'s crime, might incline a juror to favor the death penalty."
Louis Truesdale, black, was executed in South Carolina on 11 December 1998 for the murder of a white woman. Attorneys representing Truesdale presented statistical evidence during legal appeals that showed the death penalty was sought in a racially biased manner by the local prosecutors. Between 1977 and 1993, the death penalty was sought in 63 per cent of all cases involving a black defendant charged with the murder of a white victim and in 5 per cent of cases involving all other racial combinations of defendant and victim. Despite testimony from a leading statistician that the likelihood of such a pattern occurring by chance was one in 1,000, the courts denied the appeal on the basis that there was no evidence of racial discrimination in the authorities' decision to seek the death penalty.
The jury that convicted and sentenced Truesdale to death consisted of 11 whites and one black woman. Afterwards, the lone black juror stated in a sworn affidavit that during the trial she overheard two white male members of the jury discussing the case, one of whom said: "this nigger had to fry". She went on to describe how these comments "frightened and intimidated" her. She was the only juror who voted for life during the jury's sentencing deliberations.
Under South Carolina law, the jury must unanimously decide to impose a death sentence. After many hours, during which time she continued to feel afraid of and intimidated by her fellow jurors, the lone black juror gave in to the pressure and changed her vote to death. Had she known, as she now does, that a deadlocked jury would have automatically resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment for Truesdale, she said that she would have refused to change her vote.
People who hold racist views are aware that these opinions are unacceptable to many others and therefore may attempt to conceal them when called for jury duty. Other potential jurors may be influenced by unconscious racial stereotypes, while consciously believing that they are free from prejudice. Only extensive background research and intense questioning by a skilled defence attorney is likely to reveal these attitudes. Few indigent defendants on trial for their lives are likely to receive such a high level of representation from their court-appointed attorney. Even when they do, there is powerful evidence to suggest that bigotry can and does contaminate the jury process.
|
