The Sacramento Bee reports that the looniest court in the land, the 9th Circuit, has overturned the conviction of a rapist. It’s not that anyone thinks that the man isn’t guilty of the rape and robbery of a 72 year old woman, it’s just that the court believes that there weren’t enough black jurors in his case:
Steven Frank Jackson was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of breaking into a 72-year-old white woman’s apartment and repeatedly raping her and sexually assaulting her in a number of ways.
Saliva found on her breast yielded a positive match of Jackson’s DNA, and the victim identified Jackson at the trial as her attacker in the early hours of April 29, 2002.
The jury pronounced him guilty of a multitude of sexual crimes and one count of burglary, and on Sept. 30, 2004, at age 39, Jackson was sentenced to a “three-strikes” prison term of 310 years to life. The verdict and sentence were affirmed by a state appellate court and the federal district court in Sacramento. The California Supreme Court declined review.
But both were overturned last week by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals…Absent a retrial, he will go free.
In a 2 1/2-page memorandum the three judges state that the reasons the prosecutor gave for his peremptory challenges excusing the two prospective African American jurors “were not sufficient to counter the evidence of purposeful discrimination.”
The 9th Circuit judges note with some indignation that “two out of three prospective African American jurors were stricken,” and then declare that “the record reflected different treatment of comparably situated jurors.”…
“The decision took us completely by surprise,” said Sacramento County Chief Deputy District Attorney Cindy Besemer. She said Deputy District Attorney Scott Triplett had “excused two jurors for reasons other than race. The 9th Circuit’s order doesn’t cite any evidence which conflicts with the findings made by (two) lower courts.”
So a rapist may go free because we need affirmative action on juries now? Do they not care at all that if this animal is set free other women will be raped? What is wrong with these people?
The District Attorney’s Office will appeal, of course and hopefully the case will land on the desk of someone sane. In the meantime, I think Charlton Heston said it best:
August 3, 2010 at 2:36 am
I'm all for judicial economy, but the 9th circuit memorandum opinions are terrible. The only solace we can draw from this is that the opinion will have zero precedential value.
August 3, 2010 at 3:06 am
That's horrible. What a bunch of morons.
August 3, 2010 at 3:14 am
A better and more apropos Charlton Heston quote, albeit not from a movie, would be "Political correctness is tyranny with manners."
August 3, 2010 at 12:17 pm
It seems to me Politikal Correctness is frequently much more than ill mannered.
August 3, 2010 at 5:14 pm
It's called a Batson challenge, and its been around for many years (you can thank the SCOTUS for that). Although striking two of three AfAms does not sound quite so blatant, but that my depend on many other factors not present in this excerpt.
August 3, 2010 at 6:17 pm
This is end result of civil rights, two legged animals allowed to roam free. Completely insane.
August 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm
This should be a commentary about why using peremptory challenges to discriminate against jurors can lead to miscarriages of justice. One has to wonder why the dumb prosecutor excluded the AfAm jurors. I am disappointed by this entry and some of the comments.
August 3, 2010 at 9:05 pm
One has to wonder why the racial makeup of the jury is of importance, since we're supposed to be living in a post-racial world.
August 3, 2010 at 9:05 pm
"One has to wonder why the dumb prosecutor excluded the AfAm jurors."
Two of three were excluded, no mention made of how many others were willing to sit on a jury. From what I've heard over the years, sitting on a jury is looked upon as a nuisance and something to be avoided. That mindset goes across all color & gender lines.
Very possible the "dumb" prosecutor was doing the best he could with what he had.
August 3, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Everyone in the legal profession knows that peremptory challenges, or challenges without having to show cause, are an imprecise science based on the lawyers' best guess of who might be more or less sympathetic to their case. It is well-known that race, sex, and economic class are probably the most widely used bases for striking a juror–that, along with shoe-size, shirt-color and any number of arbitrary reasons. Of course it is unconstitutional to disqualify a juror based on race, but courts should be extremely deferent to the decisions of the lawyers and the trial courts. Race will usually not be the ONLY factor and it should only be a problem when it IS the only factor.
That being said, I'm not familiar with the Ninth Circuit's opinion. Its probably wrong, but you never know.
August 4, 2010 at 5:05 pm
jury pronounced him guilty of a multitude of sexual crimes and one count of burglary, and on Sept. 30, 2004, at age 39, Jackson was sentenced to a "three-strikes" prison term of 310 years to life.
The verdict and sentence were affirmed by a state appellate court and the federal district court in Sacramento. The California Supreme Court declined review.
But both were overturned last week by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals…Absent a retrial, he will go free.
This is the result of Senate judiciary committee controlled by Kennedy and Dodd/liberal democrat "activism" — a 39-year old w/ proven track record of sex crimes (3 strikes and your out) — including raping a 72-year old woman is turned back out on the street due to some racial b.s. This is the same b.s (bias) happening in the Holder justice department and, if I may say so, the same racial b.s. that happened in the O.J. Simpson trial.
Any citizen who is not outraged that such a dangerous person would be irresponsibly put back on the street to rape and attack more women is not "unracist", but crazy.