The modern so-called Anti-Racism movement is rooted in the idea that racism permeates all aspects of American culture, society, and even government and law, but that it is not overt, but covert. Critical Race Theory seeks, in part, to redress this “structural” or “systemic” racism. We got a taste of what that means in practice, from the highest court in New Jersey.
As Blake Nelson reports for NJ Advance Media for NJ.com (In ‘historic’ ruling, N.J.’s top court orders new murder trial saying ‘implicit bias’ tainted jury selection)
New Jersey’s Supreme Court unanimously ordered a new trial Tuesday for a man convicted of murder after concluding there was evidence of “implicit bias” during the jury selection process.
In 2017, the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office singled out one prospective juror for a background check after their request to have him removed was denied, according to court records. They found the candidate, a Black man identified only by initials in court papers, had a warrant and arrested him soon after.
“Based on all of the circumstances, we infer that F.G.’s removal from the jury panel may have stemmed from implicit or unconscious bias on the part of the State, which can violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial in the same way that purposeful discrimination can,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote in the decision.
The italics are mine. What this means is that there is no evidence of prejudice, bias, racism, or discrimination. It is “implicit bias” because the juror was a black man. If he were white, would the court have “found” any “unconscious bias?” What this means is that the court found no evidence or facts to back up the charge of racial bias. It just had to surmise that the prosecutor “may have” been biased. Imagine what the “may have” premise means in a court of law. What defense attorney will now not try to nullify a verdict based on the idea that bias may have been present. Imagine if a prosecutor implored a jury to return a guilty verdict despite weak evidence because, well, the defendant still may have done it. In the face of “may have,” what becomes of “beyond a reasonable doubt”; What becomes of “innocent until proven guilty”; What becomes of “the rule of law, not of men”; foundational American principles all?
Am I being alarmist? Considering that the NJ Supreme Court just made up bias out of whole cloth based not on evidence but on “may have,” I think not. This is the Supreme Court of a state, for God’s sake! Basically, the court declared themselves to be mind readers, or omniscient. “I don’t see any actual evidence for deliberate bias. But I just know it’s there. It just must be implicit, or unconscious, or . . . well . . . it just has to be there. Therefore, it is!” That’s the gist of this decision. Is this justice? No. Is this impartiality? No. Is this fair? No. Is this an arbitrary rule? Absolutely. This is a frontal assault on Americanism.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that what the prosecutor did was right. Here’s what happened:
In 2014, Edwin Andujar was accused of stabbing his roommate to death with a kitchen knife.
Andujar is Hispanic, according to online prison records, and lawyers began questioning potential jurors for his trial three years later.
One potential juror from Newark said he was familiar with the criminal justice system because he knew cousins in law enforcement, friends who’d been accused of crimes and others who’d been victims.
That experience meant the potential juror couldn’t be fair, prosecutors argued.
It’s “very concerning” that “his close friends hustle,” one prosecutor said, according to court records. “That draws into question whether he respects the criminal justice system.”
Andujar’s lawyer disagreed, saying “it is not a hidden fact that living in certain areas you are going to have more people who are accused of crimes, more people who are victims of crime,” court records show.
The judge sided with Andujar, concluding that the man “would make a fair and impartial juror.”
The prosecutor’s office then ran a background check.
They found the man had twice been arrested, although not convicted, and he had a current municipal court warrant for simple assault, according to court records.
None of that disqualified him as a juror, Rabner wrote. Yet prosecutors still moved to put him in handcuffs.
This certainly looks like a trick by the prosecutor to get around the judge’s ruling on that juror. I’m no legal expert, But having that juror arrested to get him off the jury certainty looks like abuse of prosecutorial power. That looks like grounds enough to throw the verdict out. So why, then, did the court resort to cheap imagination acrobatics to justify its ruling?
“The record reveals that implicit or unconscious racial bias infected the jury selection process in violation of defendant’s fundamental rights,” the chief justice wrote.
What “record?” The only record I see is prosecutorial abuse. What was “revealed?” It sounds more like a religious-like revelation. How does that prosecutorial abuse “reveal” racial bias? An unconscionable tactic, for sure. But racial bias? The only racial bias I see is in the court’s decision, which is based on the juror’s black skin color. This was an ideological, political decision to supplant rule of law with arbitrary rule of men to advance a racist, unAmerican agenda. With the justice system herein corrupted, what chance will anyone, especially anyone that now finds himself a the disfavored group, such as having “white” skin, have for a fair trial? Shame on the NJ Supreme Court for buying into this anti-justice collectivist evil.
Related Reading:
The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’
Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle
The Founding Fathers, Not ‘Diversity,’ is the Solution to ‘Our Racialized Society’
Starbucks/USA Today’s Racist “Race Together” Campaign
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Related Viewing:
John McWhorter: America Has Never Been Less Racist -- Reason interview
No comments:
Post a Comment