Clergy may be kept off juries because they are too sympathetic to criminals

[Toto]

Clergy too sympathetic (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/13/national/13CLER.html)

A curious case. It appears that a prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to exclude a black minister as a juror, and the defendant's lawyer suggested that the challenge was based on the man's race, which is an impermissible basis. The presecutor had some problems articulating a valid reason to exclude the minister, and the judge suggested that the clergy are just too soft on criminals. The prosecutor agreed, and after the defendant was convicted, the issue was appealed, and the Florida appeals court upheld the exclusion of the minister.

Court decisions on whether excluding jurors on the basis of their religion is constitutional are mixed, but courts tend to accept challenges to members of the clergy so long as they are framed as a concern about members of all faiths.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, for instance, held that a prosecutor "expressed a legitimate concern that ministers are uniquely forgiving," and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, accepted the rationale that a minister could be excluded because "perhaps she would have a higher threshold of reasonable doubt."


. . .

Professor Rogow said the ruling was misguided both as a matter of theory and in its understanding of the uniformity of views held by members of the clergy.

"There are plenty of ministers who have hearts of stone," he said. "If you had a white, Christian, fundamentalist minister, I don't think he would have been excluded."

[Philosoft]

Considering religion is specified in Title VII's list of protected classes, it's possible the excluded clergy have a case. Maybe Buffman knows more about the case law. Are all the Title VII protected classes also immune to peremptory challenge?

[Bible Humper]

the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, accepted the rationale that a minister could be excluded because "perhaps she would have a higher threshold of reasonable doubt."

ROFLMAO

[lpetrich]

So this guy got excluded because he came too close to following the Sermon on the Mount?

More specifically, the part about loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek, and so forth.

[joedad]

[b]Court decisions on whether excluding jurors on the basis of their religion is constitutional are mixed, but courts tend to accept challenges to members of the clergy so long as they are framed as a concern about members of all faiths.[/b

In that case, and presuming my own innocence in any possible future encounter, it should be possible to assemble a jury of atheists over 45 with a non-bible college education, without regard to race, and on the grounds that potential jurors who believe in personal immortality, hell, heaven, angels, spirits, gods, devils, miracles, evil, grace, prayer, etc. have compromised their ability to render a verdict based upon evidence.

Makes sense to me.

joe

[fromtheright]

I agree with the Court, but I believe lawyers should be able to strike anyone from a jury with their peremptory strikes.

[B34RZ0R]

I know this post is a couple days old, but I am pleased to hear that a clergy member was removed from the jury 'pool'. In the sole basis of seperation of church and state we need to keep any leader of a religious group out.. be it christian jewish muslim etc' they all believe in something that isn't real.. If I went in claiming my belief in "the force" would I not be removed from the jury for believing in something that a man made up?
thats my two bits
*Bear*

[Krieger]

"There are plenty of ministers who have hearts of stone," he said. "If you had a white, Christian, fundamentalist minister, I don't think he would have been excluded."
That is a very good point.

This is not a separation of church and state issue here. The prosecutor didn't want him on the jury because he was black.

[Corwin]

I don't see it as a racial issue.... I can easily see a prosecutor excluding a Quaker or Mennonite from a murder trial jury.

Honestly, would you want someone on a murder jury who by definition has said 'I will not consider the death penalty under any circumstances because I think the invisible sky fairy told me to?'

How about having Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell on the jury for a gaybashing?

Clergy have taken a public stand on particular issues, and their justification for these issues would never stand up in a court. They've already publically stated their disregard for the rules of evidence by their affiliation with clerical organizations.

[ohwilleke]

The bad part of this case is that the Court didn't consider the Prosecutor's reason a pretense for striking based on race, even though he couldn't think of any reason of his own without prompting.

No doubt race was a predominant reason for the strike.

BTW, the issue about striking flows from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, rather than stautory U.S. law and has so far been applied only to race and gender.

It is an odd rule (a bit like that of employment law) in that you make make a pre-emptory strike for any reason at all, but not for some reasons.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

[Stephen Maturin]

Religion-based Batson challenges? Christ, when will it end? It's tough to say what's more ludicrous, the notion that there should be yet another restriction on the use of peremptories, the fact that the prosecutor apparently didn't have the wattage to come up with with a bullshit post hoc rationalization for an obviously race-based strike, or the fact that the bullshit post hoc rationalization actually used came from the judge!

[Toto]

The latest on this issue:

Too Religious for the Jury? A Federal Court Upholds Peremptory Challenges Based on Religious Involvement (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20031105.html)

On October 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in United States v. Dejesus that prosecutors may use "peremptory challenges" to eliminate jurors who are very religiously involved.
. . .

Is Religiosity, As Opposed to Religious Affiliation, a Prohibited Ground?

That brings us to the Third Circuit case with which this column began. In United States v. Dejesus, Jerry Dejesus was convicted of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Dejesus was sentenced to 110 months in prison, along with three years of supervised release and a special assessment of $100. On appeal, Dejesus argued, among other things, that his conviction should be overturned because the prosecutor impermissibly exercised peremptory challenges based on a prohibited ground, namely religiosity.

The government countered that it did not eliminate jurors based on their religious affiliation - Christian versus Jewish versus Muslim versus Hindu. Instead, it struck jurors who were highly committed to the practice of religion.

In the case of one juror, his responses to a questionnaire (distributed to everyone in the jury pool) indicated that his life included a high degree of religious involvement and revolved around the church. Based on this information, the prosecutor concluded that the juror might be excessively compassionate (and not sufficiently judgmental) towards a guilty defendant.

[Philosoft]

That's an interesting distinction, but I don't think it will fly. I can see simliar arguments...

"Your honor, the people don't wish to strike Mr. Jackson because he's black, but because his blackness makes him more sympathetic to the defense's contention that hip-hop music was a causative factor in the crime."