Scotus (essentially) sentences a Black man to death convicted by an all white openly racist jury

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[best3444]

That's really awful. How was the jury racist and allowed to make such a huge decision?

 

What I mean is, how were they openly racist and able to serve on the jury?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, best3444 said:

That's really awful. How was the jury racist and allowed to make such a huge decision?

 

What I mean is, how were they openly racist and able to serve on the jury?

 

The defense attorneys displayed their own level of incompetence by failing to make premptory strikes on the jurors who openly expressed these views.

[Keyser_Soze]

13 minutes ago, best3444 said:

That's really awful. How was the jury racist and allowed to make such a huge decision?

 

What I mean is, how were they openly racist and able to serve on the jury?

 

If you've ever been picked to serve on a jury for jury duty it becomes quite clear and Wade kind of pointed it out.

 

Basically when you're chosen it's like they do a draft type of thing where they ask you questions and then if they don't like something about you they dismiss you. So it's pretty easy to see someone getting a stacked jury of racists if one side let it happen.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The defense attorneys displayed their own level of incompetence by failing to make premptory strikes on the jurors who openly expressed these views.

These responses by the jurors are grounds for being struck for cause, but I’m guessing the judge disagreed. On the preemptory strike, more than likely they used their strikes on even *worse* jurors.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Good thing we have a robust system in place to allow defendants to challenge the competence of their legal defense as laid out in Strickland v Washington 

 

(we don’t, and Strickland is a terrible standard)

[Keyser_Soze]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

(we don’t, and Strickland is a terrible standard)

 

Great propane though

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

These responses by the jurors are grounds for being struck for cause, but I’m guessing the judge disagreed. On the preemptory strike, more than likely they used their strikes aim even *worse* jurors.

Per sotomayors dissent his lawyer had the strikes available but didn’t use them on the three men in question. Or the fourth alternate (who later doubled down on their opinions)

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Per sotomayors dissent his lawyer had the strikes available but didn’t use them on the three men in question. 

Hmmm, this is different than what I read when this was at the circuit court when the initial appeals court stuff made it there. That would be quite the revelation and about as slam dunk an IAC claim as one could make. Inexcusable.

[stepee]

41 minutes ago, best3444 said:

That's really awful. How was the jury racist and allowed to make such a huge decision?

 

What I mean is, how were they openly racist and able to serve on the jury?

 

This is just what happens in a country controlled by an elitist cabal using federal authority and military powers to force woke anti-white racism upon the population.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Hmmm, this is different than what I read when this was at the circuit court when the initial appeals court stuff made it there. That would be quite the revelation and about as slam dunk an IAC claim as one could make. Inexcusable.

The rules what what a defendant has to prove for an IAC claim are written to be very shitty as to be ineffective and variable across judges and circuits as they were written by conservatives in Strickland. These people want to undo Gideon for what it’s worth, and death by a thousand cuts is what we’re getting here. 
 

there was one case where a defendant up on a capital murder charge had a lawyer who was so drunk at trial he was held in contempt and thrown in jail and that wasn’t enough for IAC. Same thing happened with lawyers sleeping in court as well in other cases. It’s a bad standard and broken by design. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The rules what what a defendant has to prove for an IAC claim are written to be very shitty as to be ineffective and variable across judges and circuits as they were written by conservatives in Strickland. These people want to undo Gideon for what it’s worth, and death by a thousand cuts is what we’re getting here. 
 

there was one case where a defendant up on a capital murder charge had a lawyer who was so drunk at trial he was held in contempt and thrown in jail and that wasn’t enough for IAC. Same thing happened with lawyers sleeping in court as well in other cases. It’s a bad standard and broken by design. 

There have been cases where the trial lawyer who screwed up testified to the fact that they made an error, only for the state to argue it was probably just a strategic decision that didn’t work out and the court sided with the state. You are 100% correct, broken by design.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

You are 100% correct

Putting this on my fridge like it’s my child’s artwork