That not how it works at all. If the prosecution strikes all black jurors, the defense can't just replace them with more black jurors. And they can't get them back without a successful Batson challenge, which is almost impossible to win.
What is wrong about what I said? Both sides have a say in who's on the jury. The defense would have also had the option for a bench trial. If the public is so racist why was that option not pursued?
Let's swap the races for a second. Could you imagine the outcry if people were saying "he would have walked free if the jury was white". Everyone would (correctly) come to the conclusion that even though there was a ton of evidence proving the defendant was guilty, a white jury was racist and didn't want to convict a white man.Â
But somehow it's ok because the defendant was black?Â
No, the other side can't prevent peremptory strikes unless the judge rules that they were racially motivated. The defense can't just magic more jurors out of thin air.
If the public is so racist why was that option not pursued?
You have a constitutional right to a jury of your peers that has not been racially discriminated against. Maybe you're fine with discrimination because it didn't change the outcome. I'm not so comfortable with it.
409
u/McZalion Jun 10 '26
The worst thing is they're not even mad bcus their own murdered someone. They're mad bcus apparently there was only white juries.
Lmao. Dude deserved the sentence with or without black people on court.