Court allows juror strikes based on language.Excluding potential jurors because they speak a foreign language does not violate the Equal Protection Clause The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. , the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. A three-judge panel reversed a district court ruling and upheld two New Jersey drug convictions. It rejected arguments by the defendants that the prosecutor's use of peremptory peremptory adj. absolute, final and not entitled to delay or reconsideration. The term is applied to writs, juror challenges or a date set for hearing. PEREMPTORY. Absolute; positive. A final determination to act without hope of renewing or altering. strikes to remove all Spanish-speaking jurors amounted to discrimination against Hispanics. (Pemberthy v. Beyer, 19 F.3d 857 (3d Cir. Mar. 16, 1994).) "[N]o simple equation can be drawn between ethnicity ethnicity Vox populi Racial status–ie, African American, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic and language," Judge Samuel Alito Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. (born April 1, 1950) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito served as a United States attorney and a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit wrote. "Sociologists recognize language as only one of the many components of ethnicity." Alan Zegas, an attorney in West Orange, New Jersey, who represents defendant Gabriel Pemberthy, said the effect of the decision will be "to deny Latino defendants a jury of their peers." By excluding Spanish speakers, he said, "you are by definition excluding the entire Latino population from the jury." The conviction were based largely on tapes of wiretapped telephone conversations in Spanish. The prosecutor struck five Spanish-speaking jurors - including two non-Hispanics - on the grounds that they might be unwilling or unable to accept the translations of the conversations presented as evidence at trial. Special Knowledge The court agreed with the state that the U.S. Supreme Court's prohibition prohibition, legal prevention of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages, the extreme of the regulatory liquor laws. The modern movement for prohibition had its main growth in the United States and developed largely as a result of the on race based jury strikes did not rule out strikes based on language ability. It held that because the translations were a major issue at trial, the prosecutor had a legitimate, trial-related reason to remove Spanish speakers from the jury. Language ability the court said, constitutes special knowledge, like accounting or engineering, that might make it difficult for Spanish-speaking jurors to restrict their deliberations to the evidence. The judges also found that group classifications based on language ability, do not qualify for strict or heightened review under equal protection doctrine, as do race and gender stereotypes. However, the court urged trial judges to be "particularly sensitive" to potential mis-use by lawyers of language-based peremptory challenges The right to challenge a juror without assigning, or being required to assign, a reason for the challenge. During the selection of a jury, both parties to the proceeding may challenge prospective jurors for a lack of impartiality, known as a challenge for cause. . "We wish to emphasize in the strongest possible terms that a challenger's decision that is actually motivated by, racial or ethnic consideration continues to be subject to strict scrutiny A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy. even when the attorney asserts that he or she is categorizing jurors by linguistic ability rather than by race or ethnicity," Alito wrote. Zegas has asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling. In a 1991 decision, the Justices revealed differing views on the question. (Hernandez v. New York New York, state, United States New York, Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of , 500 U.S. 352 (1991).) |
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion