Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Racist Woman Given Indefinite Jury Duty 54

Posted by samzenpus
from the the-long-hours-of-the-law dept.
A Brooklyn woman known only as "Juror No. 799" upset a federal judge so much with her racist remarks that he put her on indefinite jury duty. When asked to name three people she admired least the woman answered, "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians." When asked why she answered the question that way, she told Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis, "You always hear about them in the news doing something." Then just for good measure she claimed that "All cops are lazy." Assistant U.S. Attorney Taryn Merkl requested that the woman be disqualified, but Garaufis was not amused saying, "She's coming back [today], Thursday and Friday - and until the future, when I am ready to dismiss her." I look forward to the sitcom based on the case.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Racist Woman Given Indefinite Jury Duty

Comments Filter:
  • Given a couple of recent stories here on Slashdot which involve juries and seem to end up with people discussing various ways of getting out of jury duty (of which 'being openly racist / homophobic' etc seem to be the suggested routes) maybe the judge has also been loitering here and read the same posts?

  • Jury duty is a form of conscription (aka slavery). He's just kicking it up a notch.

    • No, it's not. And just in case you get any ideas, jury duty is also completely unlike the holocaust, had nothing to do with Hitler, and wasn't executed or sent to Siberia by Stalin. So just stop it.

      • No, it's not.

        Strong logic there. It's forced labor, under threat of caging or death.

        Your turn.

        • Death? On which planet is there a death penalty on refusing to do jury duty?
          • What's important is to not look at only the immediate effects, but also the total effects.

            If you feel your liberty is being violated by being conscripted for jury 'duty' you might stay home.

            If that happens you'll have a warrant put out for your arrest. If you feel that arrest would also violate your liberty, you might resist that arrest, perhaps with force in self-defense. If you're successful in doing so, you'll either immediately or eventually be shot, likely fatally, having your life taken as well as y

            • by Nutria (679911)

              It's possible to have an effective society without the violent conscription of individuals onto juries. We should do that.

              No one's stopping you from moving to the PRC.

              • No one's stopping you from moving to the PRC.

                Right, our government violates its own Constitution, so I should get the hell out. Nice to see the Tories are still alive and well in the US.

                • by Nutria (679911)

                  our government violates its own Constitution, so I should get the hell out.

                  You say that until you're false accused of a crime. Then you'll pray that enough intelligent people willingly perform their civic duty of serving on a jury.

                  • You say that until you're false accused of a crime. Then you'll pray that enough intelligent people willingly perform their civic duty of serving on a jury.

                    That's how it's supposed to be. In reality, they disqualify anybody who might be qualified so that the jurors can be easily swayed. Any personal knowledge of the matter or the parties get one a pass (the notion of 'peers' has been completely corrupted) . And they lie to the jury about their rights and duties. I was called for jury duty last year and

                    • by Nutria (679911)

                      In reality, they disqualify anybody who might be qualified so that the jurors can be easily swayed.

                      When I went through jury selection, I told the lawyers that the Reasonable Doubt is a very high burden for the prosecutor to overcome.

                      You'd think that she (the prosecutor was a black woman) would have immediately dismissed me for such a pro-defense statement, but didn't happen.

                    • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

                      you would be more fair and impartial than the other jury candidates.

                      Fair and impartial jurors are the last thing they want. They want jurors who can be swayed easily.

                    • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

                      Isn't it possible that the judge correctly decided that you were an abrasive, unlikable person

                      Oh dear, holding someone to the due responsibility of their position and expecting them to carry out their duties lawfully makes me abrasive and unlikable...

            • So you'd have no problem being put on trial with no jury? I'm sure those individuals volunteering for jury duty wouldn't be biased at all.
              • So you'd have no problem being put on trial with no jury? I'm sure those individuals volunteering for jury duty wouldn't be biased at all.

                I live in a place where nearly the entire government is run by volunteers, and they may have their own biases, but they operate in a typically fair manner.

              • by azalin (67640)
                Actually I would prefer a court of professional judges who
                a) actually know the law
                b) are accountable for misjudgements they made
                That said, no trial should be held behind closed doors.
                Btw. The "Trial without jury" thing is actually quite popular in europe.
            • by tehcyder (746570)

              What's important is to not look at only the immediate effects, but also the total effects.

              If you feel your liberty is being violated by being conscripted for jury 'duty' you might stay home.

              If that happens you'll have a warrant put out for your arrest. If you feel that arrest would also violate your liberty, you might resist that arrest, perhaps with force in self-defense. If you're successful in doing so, you'll either immediately or eventually be shot, likely fatally, having your life taken as well as your liberty.

              I can't quite believe that anyone who can write in full sentences can be so retarded.

              • I can't quite believe that anyone who can write in full sentences can be so retarded.

                No, that's a strong argument! What happened, did your world view get disrupted by logic?

        • Sometimes something is so ridiculous that a simple repudiation is the obvious refutation. Jury duty is a duty. It's not slavery.

          Slavery is when work is stolen from a person for no pay. Jury duty is a duty. A duty is an obligation we owe to other people. Therefore jury duty isn't work that is stolen, it's already owed to other people. If a person doesn't perform their duty, then it is they who are stealing from other people.

          • Slavery is when work is stolen from a person for no pay.

            Slaves were paid with room and board. In my State, our Constitution specifies that jurors be "fully compensated for their time, travel, and attendance." At most, they pay a fraction of IRS mileage.

            Jury duty is a duty. A duty is an obligation we owe to other people.

            This is a tautology. Tell me, how was this obligation created?

            If a person doesn't perform their duty, then it is they who are stealing from other people.

            This is a statement of a so-calle

            • The obligation is created by reaping all the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. You are better than you would have been otherwise, and for that you owe a duty to your fellow citizens. If you had not wanted this from your fellow citizens, then you shouldn't have taken it.

              Now do the duty that you owe to your fellow citizens. We're not chumps. Pay for what you have received.

          • by jasonditz (597385)
            Suppose we create something new called "farming duty" where they make a certain class of people toil on other peoples' farmland (we'll call them duty-tations) under threat of prison or whipping for room and board. Sound good?
            • There are already professional farmers, so your suggestion is as dumb as you are.

              The sentence starting with "Suppose we..." is as open ended as it could be. Just because you can complete the sentence doesn't mean it makes any sense as an argument.

    • jury duty is a duty...it's something you should feel compelled to do without being compelled to do it by outside forces. the benefit is that you are entitled to a trial by jury in the event that you are accused of a crime. this service isn't free. you pay for it by being a juror yourself when called upon. but, alas, i've already failed by responding to a troll.
      • ... but, alas, i've already failed by responding to a troll.

        In your defense -- and, I guess, by extension, mine -- it was apparently a really good troll. At least if you can measure success from the size of the response tree.

      • the benefit is that you are entitled to a trial by jury in the event that you are accused of a crime

        But I don't want a trial by jury of 12 nincompoops who are ignorant of the subject matter and my personal character. This is the result of the compulsory system (and an overabundance of laws), and a complete perversion of the common law tradition of a 'jury by one's peers'.

  • judicial trolling at its best.
  • He's a liberal irony-minded judge. They fight crime!
    • by tobiah (308208)

      ha! I look forward to the TV show, and suggest casting Sarah Palin (as herself) and Matt Stone.

      • by RockDoctor (15477)

        [I] suggest casting Sarah Palin (as herself) and Matt Stone.

        Palin to both "act" (note the quotation marks!) and script at least her own part.

        I don't know who the other one is ... [WIKIS] ... oh, one of the South Park guys. [/self thinks] Nope, I don't get that bit of your sense of humour. Is Stone allegedly some sort of closet Moral Majority retard?

        Ach. Life is too short to try to catch up on Slashdot after the holiday.

  • there's no need to be mean like that.

    The juror questionnaire (so the lawyers can figure out who to strike) has a lot of personal questions that are designed to try to be proxies to figure out things like racism/sexism.

    So if you really aren't interested in being a juror on a particular trial, you can do worse than to simply list your religion as Branch Davidian [wikipedia.org].

  • to say that you're prejudiced against all races.

    • I refuse, for religious reasons, to stand in judgement of any person.

      Bonus points if you can cite chapter and verse.

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...