Jury Foreman Calls Other Jurors Racist

The foreman of the jury that aquitted two teens of all serious charges in the beating death of an illegal immigrant believes some of the jurors were racist. He said he thinks they had their mind made up from the start.

At the Schuylkill County Courthouse on Friday, the all-white jury of six men and six women acquitted Brandon Piekarsky of third-degree murder and Derrick Donchak of aggravated assault in the beating death of Luis Ramirez.

The jury foreman said there was a lot of racial tension in the courtroom and in the jury deliberation room.

"I believe strongly that some of the people on the jury were racist. I believe strongly that some of the people on the jury had their minds made up maybe before the first day of trial," said Maclin. "And I believe the four boys that were involved the most are racist. I absolutely do. Derrick Donchak wore a US Border Patrol t-shirt to a Halloween party after Luis died. That is racist. That is beyond in bad taste. That is horrible."

Piekarsky and Donchak will be sentenced at a later date. Simple assault is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum of two years in prison.

http://www.wnep.com/wnep-jury-foreman-calls-other-jurors-racist,0,3864845.story

:shrug:

mistake

case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


"Jury foreman Eric Maclin said he believed the teens were guilty of those serious charges, but that the evidence just was not there to convict them."


On the other hand, he clearly thought some jurors had other reasons for voting not guilty -- reasons of bias.

And he didn't.

"I do believe that our verdict was a fair verdict given the evidence and the testimony that we had to work with."

Do you think in general jurors should vote guilty in order to hang up a jury so more evidence can be acquired? I don't. The prosecutor doesn't get do-overs.

That would set a really bad precedent where a juror believes the prosecution has not proved their case, but because they think the defendant might be guilty they'd cause a mistrial.

Either the prosecution proves its case or it doesn't.
The foreman did the right thing if he felt the case was not proven.

I hope you're never the defendant in a trial where a juror intentionally cause a mistrial to give the prosecution a second crack at you.

If the evidence is not there to convict them, then what does racism has to do with anything?
Doesn't make any sense.

and came out thinking that the defendants were probably guilty -- but the case hadn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

HOWEVER, he thought some jurors were racist and had already decided how they were going to vote before the case started.

He wasn't saying that racism changed the outcome -- but he was saying that it existed and he was disturbed by it.

and if those were are racists it means they are likely to vote to acquit even if they thought the white guys were guilty. probably more likely to and be proud of the white guys who murdered the immigrant.

I've was an alternate on a jury where two people said the defendant was guilty on the first day when we were taken to lunch. They believed that if you black and were being tried that you were automatically guilty. Otherwise why would you be there...

As an alternate juror I wasn't allowed to be in the deliberations, but the defendant was found guilty even though his lawyer made a very good case for mistaken identity, including creating doubt over the general description, specifically the height of the defendant who was quite a bit shorter than the description given by witnesses. The judge refused to let him stand next to a witness so she could see he wasn't as tall as she claimed.

It's no surprise to me that the Innocence Project has found so many innocent people on death row. The system is highly imperfect and rigged with the heaviest weight going to the law enforcement and judicial system on that famous balance scale that Lady Justice holds.

the racial discrepancies - blacks who kill/injure whites get tougher sentences, etc.

Women get lighter sentences for things than men.

All our prejudices come out in force on juries.

A friend of mine was the only white person on a jury in DC. She was removed from the jury on deliberation day in favor of a black woman WHO HAD MISSED THE TRIAL!

whites are more likely to convict if someone is a minority , that's why defense with minonrity suspect usually tries to get a jury without whites.

i served on a jury once with a hispanic defendant and noticed the defense rejected just about every white person on the jury.

during the jury deliberations it wasn't that the black jurors didn't want to convict a minority but rather they were suspicious of the evidence against him. this probably has to do with personal experience and dealing with racist cops and others in authoriry.

But in DC it has fed a lot of domestic and gang crime.

It's a tough call for them.

It's how America deals with its racist tendencies (just dumping it all on the south).