Arkansas Blog

"Not exactly a jury of peers" What do you mean Leslie? Jury: 6 men, 6 women (50/50) Close to gender make up in Pulaski County. Jury: 8 whites, 4 blacks close to racial makeup in PulaskiCounty. Keep in mind the jurors were selected from the general population of Pulaski County. Or would a jury of 6 black males and 6 white women be a peer group?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Downtowner, the author of the blog item, Gerard Matthews (GM), did not mean to suggest that whites can't sit in judgment of blacks or that white men and black men aren't peers. He's not judging the jury. He meant to note the demographics of the folks who made it through the voir dire.

Is there really any such thing as a "jury of your peers"? If I'm a rich doctor accused of a crime, do I get a jury of other rich doctors? If I'm a poor drug addict, do I get a jury of other poor drug addicts?

Geez, you folks just can't help yourselves, can you? Opening statements haven't even begun and already the AT jumps to the conclusion that Vance can't get a fair trial here. What has happened up to this point to lead you to believe Vance cannot get a fair trial here? Apparently, ya'll have issues with the jury panel too. How is it not a jury of his peers? I've been reading this blog for years b/c I enjoy the content and the perspective ya'll bring, but I'll be damned if you don't often make it difficult to take you seriously as journalists.

The four black women on the jury may be a problem for the prosecution. If the Simpson trial demonstrated anything it exposed the resentment black women have of white women who they perceive as poachers in their pool of eligible black men. If Vance can be portrayed as having been somehow lured by his victim, he may be viewed sympathetically by the black women.

Absolutely a jury of peers. The selected jury is reflective of the community. Leslie, is your prejudice bubbling up by suggesting it is not representative? I'll flip the question, will four black females vote to convict a black male who allegedly assaulted and murdered a high profile, attractive white woman? The answer to your question and mine is one and the same......yes.

Serious journalists? Very Funny!

This has already been decided. Infotainment at its very best.

I didn't refer to the folks at the AT as "serious journalists," only as journalists. And with deductive reasoning illustrated by Leslie it's a stretch to label them as journalists, much less serious ones, thus the phrasing I used in my original post.

The Polecat is right. but how can you tell what other people think, really?

In these pictures of Vance well-dressed, strolling down the courthouse hallways alone, he looks like a young attorney or paralegal or whatever, not a defendant of any sort. that could be seen prejudicial treatment -- If he had really done those awful things, would the sheriff let him walk around freely, alone, like that?

Memo to the PiginBlack from a long-time blog member: We don't feed trolls here. Scat, if you will, please. Scat, scat, scat.

Upon further reflection on this jury demographic, I'll go a little further.

I would say there is greater than a 50% chance of a hung jury. Any trial consultant worth his or her salt could have warned the prosecution about this.

Uh, Tina, just because I don't post often doesn't mean I haven't been a regular visitor to this board. And with all due respect, piss on you. (And like Ricky Bobby said, saying piss on you is okay because I prefaced it "with all due respect".) I can post just as freely as you can. Leslie's comment was so damn illogical I couldn't keep from responding. That does not make me a troll. If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read it.

I'll go so far as to say there is a 99% chance that if convicted he won't get the death penalty. What a sorry bunch of prosecutors not to know the basics of jury selection.

Juries have a difficult job. I know it and respect it. Can we hold off on the assumptions of screw ups and miscarriages of justice until after the trial? Like some others on here, I find fascinating the trends and statistics of juries in trials, but I have to remind myself that, at this point in this case, the action is too much in play for assumptions to be anything more than a guessing game.

Too many parlor games in this affair so far by both sides. My money is on the defense taking the plea deal of life in prison without parole sometime during day 7 (a day or two after the prosecution rests). That would be almost 2 weeks from today. Until then, this will be more chum for the local news (tv, print, and other). The defense knows what cards it holds, and I don't see a smart bunch like the gang of three public defenders for Vance going down to sentencing with a slow drip still on the table. Right now, the best the 3 PD's can do is keep him out of death row.

""Do you believe a black defendant, particularly with a white victim, can get a fair trial in Pulaski County?" Well, what do you think?"

Well, I think this: I think he can. And, I think he will. If a Jonesboro jury of 11 whites and one black can decide unanimously that Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. discriminated against six black employees and award each of the them $200K, why should one assume that a Pulaski County jury comprising four blacks and eight whites will be anything less than fair?

"EDITOR'S NOTE: Downtowner, the author of the blog item, Gerard Matthews (GM), did not mean to suggest that whites can't sit in judgment of blacks . . ."

Sorry, I don't buy it.

If GM did not mean to suggest that "whites can't sit in judgment of blacks", then why did he say it? His clear implication is that a jury of peers does not exist. So please have him clearly explain what he is trying to say and why is there not a jury of peers?

If I mistakenly attributed the original post to Leslie instead of GM, I apologize.

GM wrote:

"Yesterday, Vance's attorney Katherine Streett asked the jury, "Do you believe a black defendant, particularly with a white victim, can get a fair trial in Pulaski County?" Well, what do you think?
********

1. My answer to GM's question is "Yes, I believe a black defendant, particularly with a white victim, can get a fair trial in Pulaski County.

2. Will this particular defendant get a fair trial? I haven't a clue; I was nowhere near the jury selection process and have no information on the jurors other than their gender and the color of their skin.

3. The Supreme Court declared nearly 25 years ago that excluding jurors -- exercising peremptory strikes or pretextual strikes "for cause" to get jurors out of the pool -- on the basis of race is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and may be grounds for overturning a verdict. The decision was extended to gender a few years later. The prosecution had no *legal* means by which to keep blacks or women or black women or white men, or whatever, off the jury on the basis that they were part of a cognizable racial or gender group.

Durango - I'm guessing he was probably referring to peer factors like education and income levels, but he didn't have time to provide the details during the short recess when he rushed to file his report. He's probably stuck in the courtroom right now, and unable to respond. Let's not jump to conclusions before he has a chance to expand on his initial report. It's not uncommon for misunderstandings to arise in the breaking news business.

TAP, given point #3 in your informative post, I (as one who's not smart enough to be a lawyer) have to wonder why Streett even asked the "fair-trial" question.

Excellent point, Arkansas Blogger, and thanks. I must confess that I sometimes knee-jerk with enough force to launch a rocket to the moon. Or, so says the dear sweet sainted wife.

I'm not smart enough to practice criminal law, either, Durango. But I know the Supreme Court forbade exclusion based on characteristics (and presumptions about those characteristics), not actual bias. So the lawyers on both sides may want to explore actual biases.

So if there were an honest bigot, or a person who was not a bigot but whose thoughts were consumed by race, the question might open the door for exploration of that potential juror's feelings on race matters.

Maybe more importantly, that sort of question may be part of a tacit agreement with jurors, an unspoken promise, that they will guard against bias and stand for fairness no matter what.

What you say, TAP, makes lots of sense (as always). Actually, I was thinking pretty much the same thing you noted in your final paragraph. Let's hope that it is, indeed, the case. On another note, I just read your reply to Sound Policy on last night's open line. I don't want to embarrass you, man, but you're a star in this blog's crown. And one of the few here who makes me THINK. Which is no easy task.

It appears that there is a working consensus here that the jury as demographically constituted does not show overt signs of unfairly excluding any group. This, even though there are no black men on the jury (no one has objected that black men were excluded).

Would it be reasonable to assume that likewise there would be no objection of there were no black women on the jury? If that is the case, then a jury with no black women would be acceptable.

That would have eliminated the possibility that the Simpson jury effect might repeat itself on a smaller scale, just enough to cause a hung jury or at least preclude the death penalty.

One could even defend such a move on the grounds that black men are the closest group to being Vance's "peers."

If the jury as constituted was the deliberate objective of Vance's defense team, they are better than they are being given credit for. (But I doubt it.)

An old Bloom County

Defense attorney argues passionately before the judge in support of bail for his ax murderer client.
Judge grants the motion, then says, "but she has to stay at YOUR house"
Next panel attorney is throwing murderer into cellar and nailing door shut as fast as he can.

TO THE PIG IN BLACK:

I owe you an apology. Please accept my apology for just presuming you were a troll. In my defense, if there is one, we have been beset by a huge amount of trolls here recently, and given what you said about the AT reporter not being a serious journalist..........I have had a horrible week because of a death in the family, I snap at everything, and I took you the wrong way.

I do sincerely apologize and I hope you see this. im going to post a copy on the open line too even if it means I have to look at that sad picture that makes me cry every time again. I cant go adopt an animal but just think what an impact it would have if each of us made a donation to our local humane society. This much evil is just too much for me to comprehend. A good hot corner of hell. I truly believe that, for any animal abuser.

a man in south carolina was sentenced to a jail term today for having sex with a horse repeatedly over a two-year period of time. The horse's owner said she knew something wasnt right when the horse began getting infections............But he won't be bothering horses any more and if he gets out of prison, which Im sure he will, he will be required to register as a sex offender.

Now how the hell did I get off on that detour? Anyway, Pig In Black, my sincere apologies. I was wrong and ill-informed (aint that a fancy way of saying STUPID???) to presume you were a troll. But they've been a problem here like roaches, you get rid of one and it comes right back.

*Shersh,* Durango. But thanks.