In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

235 NOTES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO RACIALLY MIXED JURIES 1. Throughout the book, the term, black, will be used instead of other names such as African American, Afro-American, or Negro because of the governmental definition of race and racial classification specified in Directive 15 from the Office of Management and Budget in 1977, as well as its revision in 1998. Because of our empirical analysis involving various racial categories in subsequent chapters, the book relies on the federal governmental definition of race and racial classification. 2. The King jury members were not all white; ten whites, one Hispanic, and one Asian. However, after the defense’s request for the change of venue was granted, the trial site moved from Los Angeles Central Superior Court, where the majority of prospective jurors were Blacks, to Simi Valley Superior Court, where approximately half of Los Angeles police officers lived. As a result, the King jury included three persons who were relatives of police officers and three jurors who were members of conservative national organizations including the National Rifle Association. With close associations with law enforcement agencies, those jurors were more likely to share the life experience and morals that may have been underlying factors in the crime in question. Furthermore, a racially mixed jury’s verdict might have permitted both the minority and the white communities to focus on preventing and punishing crime and violence, among other common interests, rather than divisive questions of whether the racial composition of the jury diminished the fairness of the verdict. For greater discussions of jury deliberations and verdicts, see Hiroshi Fukurai and Edgar W. Butler (1994). 3. The case profile and the history of the Beckwith trial are largely based on the work of Maryanne Vollers (1995). 4. Eight Ku Klux Klan members were convicted of federal conspiracy charges in the case, but Mississippi never brought murder charges (Herbert 1994). 5. Medgar Evers’ wife, Myrlie, had tried to establish a Nuremberg-type commission to investigate old civil rights atrocities, ones similar to the attempts by the Jews to pursue the Nazis after the war (Vollers 1995, 385). 6. While we would prefer terms such as civil disturbances, rebellions, or uprisings , the term, “riot,” has been used in the manuscript in order to make it compatible with many reports of the urban uprisings and disturbances that have used the term riot. 7. Douglas L. Colbert (1990) discusses the racial make-up of juries and its influence on jury verdicts. Sheri Lynn Johnson (1985) discusses racial prejudice and its influence on the decision-making of criminal juries. The article, “Developments in the law” (1988), discusses the harm of minority underrepresentation on juries. 8. Colbert (1990) examined jury studies in showing that influence of race is minimized when the jury is racially mixed. 9. Jury members in the minority are far more likely to maintain their viewpoints and opinions if they are certain that at least one member of the jury agrees with them. See generally Richard S. Arnold (1993). Other jury studies, however, suggest that the quality of jury deliberations is suspect, especially in criminal cases and civil law suits that require the understanding of complexities and subtleties of the evidence (Pertnoy 1993, 630). 10. Duren v. Missouri (439 U.S. 357, 360, 1979), holding that the systematic exclusion of women from jury service violates the Constitution’s fair cross section requirement. 11. Georgia v. McCollum, (112 S.Ct. 2348, 2357, 1992), recognizing that a defendant has a right to an impartial jury, but cannot disqualify a person as impartial based on race. See also Taylor v. Louisiana (419 U.S. 522, 538, 1975); Ballad v. United States (329 U.S. 187, 192–93, 1946); Strauder v. West Virginia (100 U.S. 303, 1880). 12. While Justice Thurgood Marshall was writing for only three justices, his sentiments echoed those of the Court in Ballard v. United States (329 U.S. 187, 193–194, 1946), and they are quoted approvingly by Justice White writing for the Court in Taylor v Louisiana, (419 U.S. 522, 532 n.12, 1975). In Ballard and Taylor, male defendants were challenging the exclusion of women; in Peters, a white defendant was challenging the exclusion of blacks. Thus, in each case, the Court felt obliged to explain how a defendant could be injured by the exclusion of a gender or racial group to which the defendant did not belong. CHAPTER...

Share