The Supreme Court will hear the biased juror case presented by the defense as poison in the well. The implication of a liberal finding from the court could severely damage America’s sacred trial by your peers. A cornerstone to our jury system is that jury proceedings are always secret. If that goes away, what happens to trial by jury?
SCOTUS to hear case on biased jurors poisoning the well
As Written By JAZZ SHAW AT HOT AIR
This particular case has been making its way through the system for a while now, but this fall the Supremes will finally take it up. It may not have all the flash and media circus atmosphere of abortion challenges or Second Amendment battles, but it’s one which everyone should be watching because of the fundamental implications it holds for some of our most basic constitutional rights. It’s the case of Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, and the result of this one could affect how defendants will fare when facing a trial by a jury of their peers.
The strange aspect of this challenge has very little to do with the crime with which Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez was originally charged, (unlawful sexual contact with two teenage girls) but more to do with one member of the jury who decided his fate. (ABC News)
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether jurors’ claims of racially charged comments by another juror can overcome the need for secrecy in jury deliberations.
The justices will hear an appeal from a Hispanic man in Colorado who says he did not have a fair trial because a juror made offensive comments about Mexicans.
The remarks came to light when two other jurors told the defendant’s lawyer about them. Courts rarely allow jurors to reveal what went on during their deliberations.
But defendant Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez argues that the comments were so bad they deprived him of his constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.