Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 6, 2006 21:49:06 GMT -5
La. Supreme Court upholds death penalty in Metairie murder
Race wasn't the reason that prosecutors removed blacks from the Jefferson
Parish jury that sent a black man to death row in 1996, a narrow Louisiana
Supreme Court majority ruled Wednesday.
The 4-3 decision was the court's second on whether prosecutors
unconstitutionally chose an all-white jury to hear the murder charge
against Allen Snyder, convicted of stabbing his estranged wife 15 times
and killing Harold Wilson, with whom she was talking.
Chief Justice Pascal Calogero and Justices Catherine Kimball and Bernette
Johnson disagreed with the majority, saying Snyder should get a new trial
because a black juror who already had been accepted was removed with a
"back strike."
They said the prosecutor's prejudice was shown by 2 comparisons he made
between Snyder's case and that of O.J. Simpson, who had been acquitted in
1995 of killing his ex-wife and a friend of hers.
The U.S. Supreme Court had ordered Louisiana's justices last year to
reconsider their original ruling in light of a decision it had handed down
2 weeks earlier, overturning a Texas death sentence.
In the Texas case, a black man was sentenced by a jury that included one
black, but prosecutors struck 9 other black potential jurors who had been
found qualified. In Snyder's case, prosecutors used peremptory challenges
to remove 5 black prospective jurors.
One had said at first that she could never consider the death penalty, and
later said she could consider it only in the murder of a child. The
majority ruling, by Justice John Weimer, said defense lawyers never
brought up the question of race for two others during the jury selection,
so cannot bring it up now.
The reasons given for striking the remaining two blacks from the jury pool
were that Elaine Scott was "very weak on her ability to consider the
imposition of the death penalty" and that Jeffrey Brooks, a student
teacher, seemed nervous and, worried about missing work, might choose a
lesser verdict than 1st-degree murder to avoid the penalty phase of trial.
It was Brooks on whom the dissenters focused.
The majority noted that the same sorts of questions asked of Brooks also
were asked of whites, including single mother of a school-aged child.
And, while prosecutors accepted two white men who said they were worried
about missing work, there was a big difference, Weimer wrote. "We note
that both of these men were employed and apparently already had
established careers; Brooks, on the other hand, was attempting to complete
his college courses in order to begin a career in teaching."
Brooks asked to talk to the judge about it, indicating greater concern
than the other 2 men, said Weimer, who was joined by Justices Jeanette
Knoll, Chet Traylor and Jeffrey Victory.
The prosecutor didn't ask in any detail about his student teaching
concerns, and Brooks said "OK" when told that the college dean had told
the judge's clerk he could miss a few days without a problem, wrote
Kimball, who was joined by Calogero.
The prosecutor referred to the O.J. Simpson case during a pretrial
hearing, but then said he would not do so again, or while evidence was
being presented. However, she wrote, the fact that he did refer to Simpson
during the penalty phase made the earlier statements "appear
disingenuous."
The prosecutor was comparing Simpson's testimony about feeling suicidal
after Nicole Brown's murder with testimony that a police officer had found
Snyder suicidal, curled in a fetal position, and repeating, "They're
coming to get me."
The pretrial comment was about allegations of domestic violence common to
both cases, and the later one "referred to the fact that Simpson feigned
suicidal intent," the majority said. "Neither remark referred to Simpson's
or Snyder's race."
It said the prosecutor's reasons for striking Brooks and Scott were
plausible.
Kimball disagreed.
"Considering this injection of racial issues, and the fact that the
prejudicial arguments were made to an all-white jury, I believe it is only
reasonable to conclude that Mr. Brooks was peremptorily challenged by the
State on the basis of his race when the entirety of the facts is
considered," she wrote.
Johnson quoted her earlier opinion: "The prosecutor had no need to make
reference to this defendant not getting away with murder during the
penalty phase of the trial. At this point, the defendant had already been
convicted of the crime, so there was nothing for him to 'get away with.'
The prosecutor utilized the O.J. Simpson verdict to racially inflame the
jury's passion to sentence this defendant to death."
The majority ruling said the justices don't consider the Supreme Court's
order to reconsider the 1999 ruling as a rejection of their original
analysis. "We view the remand as a mere expansion of our review," it said.
(source: Associated Press)
Race wasn't the reason that prosecutors removed blacks from the Jefferson
Parish jury that sent a black man to death row in 1996, a narrow Louisiana
Supreme Court majority ruled Wednesday.
The 4-3 decision was the court's second on whether prosecutors
unconstitutionally chose an all-white jury to hear the murder charge
against Allen Snyder, convicted of stabbing his estranged wife 15 times
and killing Harold Wilson, with whom she was talking.
Chief Justice Pascal Calogero and Justices Catherine Kimball and Bernette
Johnson disagreed with the majority, saying Snyder should get a new trial
because a black juror who already had been accepted was removed with a
"back strike."
They said the prosecutor's prejudice was shown by 2 comparisons he made
between Snyder's case and that of O.J. Simpson, who had been acquitted in
1995 of killing his ex-wife and a friend of hers.
The U.S. Supreme Court had ordered Louisiana's justices last year to
reconsider their original ruling in light of a decision it had handed down
2 weeks earlier, overturning a Texas death sentence.
In the Texas case, a black man was sentenced by a jury that included one
black, but prosecutors struck 9 other black potential jurors who had been
found qualified. In Snyder's case, prosecutors used peremptory challenges
to remove 5 black prospective jurors.
One had said at first that she could never consider the death penalty, and
later said she could consider it only in the murder of a child. The
majority ruling, by Justice John Weimer, said defense lawyers never
brought up the question of race for two others during the jury selection,
so cannot bring it up now.
The reasons given for striking the remaining two blacks from the jury pool
were that Elaine Scott was "very weak on her ability to consider the
imposition of the death penalty" and that Jeffrey Brooks, a student
teacher, seemed nervous and, worried about missing work, might choose a
lesser verdict than 1st-degree murder to avoid the penalty phase of trial.
It was Brooks on whom the dissenters focused.
The majority noted that the same sorts of questions asked of Brooks also
were asked of whites, including single mother of a school-aged child.
And, while prosecutors accepted two white men who said they were worried
about missing work, there was a big difference, Weimer wrote. "We note
that both of these men were employed and apparently already had
established careers; Brooks, on the other hand, was attempting to complete
his college courses in order to begin a career in teaching."
Brooks asked to talk to the judge about it, indicating greater concern
than the other 2 men, said Weimer, who was joined by Justices Jeanette
Knoll, Chet Traylor and Jeffrey Victory.
The prosecutor didn't ask in any detail about his student teaching
concerns, and Brooks said "OK" when told that the college dean had told
the judge's clerk he could miss a few days without a problem, wrote
Kimball, who was joined by Calogero.
The prosecutor referred to the O.J. Simpson case during a pretrial
hearing, but then said he would not do so again, or while evidence was
being presented. However, she wrote, the fact that he did refer to Simpson
during the penalty phase made the earlier statements "appear
disingenuous."
The prosecutor was comparing Simpson's testimony about feeling suicidal
after Nicole Brown's murder with testimony that a police officer had found
Snyder suicidal, curled in a fetal position, and repeating, "They're
coming to get me."
The pretrial comment was about allegations of domestic violence common to
both cases, and the later one "referred to the fact that Simpson feigned
suicidal intent," the majority said. "Neither remark referred to Simpson's
or Snyder's race."
It said the prosecutor's reasons for striking Brooks and Scott were
plausible.
Kimball disagreed.
"Considering this injection of racial issues, and the fact that the
prejudicial arguments were made to an all-white jury, I believe it is only
reasonable to conclude that Mr. Brooks was peremptorily challenged by the
State on the basis of his race when the entirety of the facts is
considered," she wrote.
Johnson quoted her earlier opinion: "The prosecutor had no need to make
reference to this defendant not getting away with murder during the
penalty phase of the trial. At this point, the defendant had already been
convicted of the crime, so there was nothing for him to 'get away with.'
The prosecutor utilized the O.J. Simpson verdict to racially inflame the
jury's passion to sentence this defendant to death."
The majority ruling said the justices don't consider the Supreme Court's
order to reconsider the 1999 ruling as a rejection of their original
analysis. "We view the remand as a mere expansion of our review," it said.
(source: Associated Press)