moonbattery logo

Mar 10 2017

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Verdicts to Be Nullified if a Juror Is Found to Have Politically Incorrect Attitudes

A recent Supreme Court ruling turns criminal justice on its head, putting the jury on trial for political incorrectness and letting the criminals run free. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado is utter lunacy:

After a Colorado jury convicted a Mexican man of sexual harassment, two jurors signed affidavits that a retired police officer on the jury had expressed racial animus during deliberations. The juror was reported to have stated that “nine times out of 10 Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls,” among other slurs. The defendant’s counsel sought to overturn the conviction based on racial animus but was denied by the trial judge.

Civilization has been protected from verdicts being retroactively nullified due to alleged flaws of the jurors for centuries, thanks to the no-impeachment rule rooted in English common law.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in the 5-3 majority opinion this week in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the rule “promotes full and vigorous discussion by jurors by providing considerable assurance that after being discharged they will not be summoned to recount their deliberations” or otherwise harassed. It also “gives stability and finality to verdicts.”

Yet Justice Kennedy joined the Court’s four liberals in Pena-Rodriguez to overturn that standard for accusations of racial bias.

What exactly constitutes “racial bias” that should result in the verdict being overturned? The Supremes don’t say, guaranteeing endless appeals on grounds of alleged juror political incorrectness.

Presumably it will still be possible to incarcerate white male heterosexual Christian criminals. All other guilty verdicts are likely to be held up indefinitely while the jurors are retroactively investigated for any indication of ideological impropriety.

The ruling is a step toward corrupting juries with political standards based on the progressive obsessions with race, gender and class.

Beyond that, it is a step toward reducing our legal system to a dysfunctional farce.

Anthony Kennedy, deranged moonbat saboteur.

On a tip from Varla.

61 Responses to “Supreme Court Ruling Allows Verdicts to Be Nullified if a Juror Is Found to Have Politically Incorrect Attitudes”

  1. Saxon Warrior says:

    Brought into moonbat law and forever known as the ‘O.J. Simpson clause’, this would seriously impede the right to prosecute Muslim terrorists (racism against Muslims), the right to prosecute male-on-male rape (homophobia), the right to prosecute any woman arrested for a crime (sexism) and transgenders will probably be given license
    to do anything they God-well please, at any time, anywhere.

    ‘Moonbatology’, an extremely difficult and confusing subject to study.

  2. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Maybe the problem is that the accused did not have a “jury of his peers.” Specifically his jury should have been made up entirely of Mexican males who have been accused of sexual harassment.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Not to mention the Chewbacca Defense…

  4. Eddie_Valiant says:

    If Trump actually nominates true conservatives to the SCOTUS, there’s a chance the US might be pulled back from the brink, even if just a little.

    He’ll have at least two appointments in his first term, and very possibly one or two more.

    Imagine having a true conservative majority on the SCOTUS. It’s almost arousing……

  5. 762x51 says:

    “All other guilty verdicts are likely to be held up indefinitely while the jurors are retroactively investigated for any indication of ideological impropriety.”

    This sets the stage for making Jury Nullification even easier for them.

    In Progressive ideology, only whites are racist, therefore the verdict of ANY jury with a white juror are subject to this “ruling”. Apparently, whites no longer have the right to presumption of innocence.

    What’s next, a Poll Tax for whites?

    That whole Second Amendment thingy just gets closer every day.

  6. Cecil Henry says:

    In other words: Jurors can’t decide for themselves. There are now no real free juries. Period.

  7. 762x51 says:

    You have seen the current GOP version of “healthcare”, right? Retardlican Progressives have no intention of doing anything “conservative” and have as much disdain for Conservatives as Demhiroids do.

    As for Gorsuch, that was the scam run when John Roberts was put on the court, how “conservative” he was, you see how that worked out.

    Just thought I’d toss a little cold water on that arousal.

  8. 762x51 says:

    In order to be prosecuted they will need to be taken alive. Why bother?

    Instead, open an account with the 72 Virgins Travel Agency for them.

  9. Hungjumper says:

    Another example of why SCOTUS members must be term-limited.

    Kennedy discovered he has a huge influence on the lives of others and he kinda likes it. History is full of such men.

  10. BiffWellington says:

    I was under the obvious misconception that both attorneys had the opportunity to screen and select or reject the jurors. My mistake.

  11. Hungjumper says:

    Me thinks all cases should just go to him and he’ll tell us who’s guilty or not.

  12. Rotohammer says:

    Mexican is a race?

  13. Rotohammer says:

    Which way did the Wise Latina vote?

  14. octa bright says:

    What happens when a White’s conviction is overturned because of Black racism? Don’t say that it can’t happen because 20 years ago who would have thought that this insanity could happen.

  15. JonathanBurke says:

    “Anthony Kennedy, deranged moonbat saboteur.”
    –Sadly, that POS was nominated to SCOTUS by the GREATEST PRESIDENT OF MODERN AMERICA. If he were alive today, he would give Kennedy this salute for ALL of us because of his betrayal of America…

  16. ICEvictim says:

    once again the clown posse in D.C. disgraces Lady Justice with a moronic interpretation of law.

    If the entire jury was racist against the defendant I might see their point but one guy?? Are the other jurors telling me this one guy steamrollered them into a verdict?? If that was true then they’d have a point. So far all I hear is that one guy was a racist. That’s it.

  17. ICEvictim says:

    I think they got to Roberts. I expect there is some real nasty bit of dirt on him.

  18. pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ says:

    Kennedy hasn’t been a conservative in the entire time he has served on the “supreme” court. The tyranny of the judiciary makes a mockery of American self-govt.

  19. ramrodd says:

    If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what
    is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that
    Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy
    the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong
    statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . .
    to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

  20. 762x51 says:

    Clearly, however, he could have stepped down rather than enslave future generations. One day, he will burn for his treacherous role, I only hope it is sooner rather than later.

  21. Stosh says:

    So the man was convicted by 12 jurors, why would one juror’s words be the sole reason the other 11 voted to convict.

  22. Daniellehgomez says:

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj414d:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash414MarketNetworkGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj414d:….,……..

  23. SDN says:

    The most credible version I’ve heard is that the Chinese government was asked by Obama’s crew to retroactively contest the legality of the adoption of his two daughters, getting them taken away.

  24. epobirs says:

    Rather doubtful that China would have any say in the adoption of Irish children, a boy, Jack, and a girl, Josephine.

  25. SDN says:

    One would rather doubt that the government of Cuba would have had anything to say in Elian Gonzales being hauled out at gunpoint. One would have been wrong, because one forgot that any excuse for Democrats to do something is good enough.

  26. Auburn Rapunzel says:

    Because theoretically, he should have been replaced by an alternate.

  27. comatus says:

    Next Census. No, really.

  28. comatus says:

    This kind of spoils “Twelve Angry Men” from now on.

  29. Amawalk2 says:

    I would have thought that the voir dire jury selection process would have handled this.

  30. Martin Hutchison says:

    So when will whitey hating black jurors, or flaming liberals be over-ruled like this? Oh wait, that’s the new normal, everyone else is biased.

  31. jukin says:

    That’s a one way street my friend.

  32. Robert T. Ives says:

    This is one of the worst criminal justice decisions ever. Once we allow the jury’s decision to be impeached on the basis of affidavits after the verdict, defendant’s will ALWAYS wish to interview the jurors after a conviction. Nothing will be final.

  33. AmyH says:

    What does the author mean a step toward? The court crossed that Rubicon a while back.

  34. AmyH says:

    Why should he have been replaced…

  35. Auburn Rapunzel says:

    Technically, you’re supposed to be unbiased–or at least, able to not let on that you’re biased. Saying that 90% of persons like the defendant have done such a crime suggests that you’re already prejudiced toward the prosecution’s case and might experience confirmation bias.

    I’m not absolutely defending this position, but I would truthfully rather have the wherewith to exclude flaming dangerhaired moonbats from juries where the defendant is minority and the victim is white because of their outspoken belief that “violence against white people is justifiable”.

  36. Auburn Rapunzel says:

    That being said, they should have caught that guy on the way in, not on the way out.

  37. LT Jacobs says:

    Great point.

  38. AmyH says:

    If that is his actual experience, it is no more biased than everyone else on the jury. People do not come to any endeavor with blank minds… indeed the reason juries are the final arbitrator of guilt and innocence is because our founding fathers trusted members of a community to come to correct decisions when they bring both their experiences and their judgement to the jury room MORE than they trusted lawmakers or judges.

  39. Swagman says:

    Not to the level of this ruling. Sure, there have been loony liberal decisions but this will certainly leave a mess in its wake. Hopefully after only a few years of seemingly endless criminal appeals and Gorsuch is seated, it’ll die a celebrated death.

  40. Swagman says:

    This is a POST-conviction remedy. Voir dire is simply now the first level of protection for the criminal against right-thinking jury members.

  41. Swagman says:

    So WORDS spoken by the juror, not the actual FACTS of the case are what determined the juror’s mind? How does one purport to determine that? Don’t you see – it doesn’t matter what the hell the guy said – he’s no more a “flaming dangerhair” than then next juror. This is wrong b/c it seeks to be a wrong-thought determinator.

  42. Swagman says:

    You need to ask? Story said Kennedy voted along with her and the other 4 numbskulls.

  43. Auburn Rapunzel says:

    Well, if I were accused of some crime against a man, I’d rather not have, say, Roosh V on the jury spouting off about how most women will cheerfully commit crimes against men and lie about it after. But perhaps that’s just me.

    However, I will agree that the case before us resulted in a harmless error. I didn’t deny that.

  44. SouthTexas says:

    The end of justice as we know it.

  45. Drumwaster says:

    There are four boxes that protect democracies from being overrun from within: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.

    The system has taken away free speech (soap) through “Political Correctness” and worse, ballot boxes are being suborned by those who would seek to let non-citizens vote (it should be ‘No ID, No Vote’, just as if said person wanted a pack of cigarettes), and now we have the jury boxes being tampered with, in order to achieve “social justice” through preventing (even more) freedom of opinion and expression.

    Guess what that leaves us?

    The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. — Justice Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court, in his dissent to Silveira v. Lockyer

  46. Drumwaster says:

    I’d rather let their decisions be term limited, based on the vote – a 5-4 decision can be challenged after 5 years (new President, likely replacement of at least one Justice), a 6-3 is good for ten, a 7-2 for twenty years, 8-1 gets thirty as stare decisis, and unanimous verdicts would require either 50 years, or a replacement of not less than five of the justices, including the CJ, that reached that decision.

    Details to be worked out, but something to think about, and something that Congress can impose without their approval or input

  47. Bugler says:

    I won’t say what I think should happen to Justice Kennedy. That would be illegal.

  48. Callmelennie says:

    Except for convictions of white male heterosexuals

  49. Henry Hansen says:

    If you’re on a jury it’s best to keep your opinions on everything (with the exception of guilt or innocence) to yourself.
    The next thing to come out of the SCOTUS will be a guilty verdict can be overturned because a juror voted the “wrong” way.

  50. spmat says:

    This is not about freeing criminals. This is about heading off jury nullification at the pass.

    The Supreme Court sees the writing on the wall. The last hope of freedom is the ability of a jury to nullify the application of unjust laws. This is the first nail in the coffin of precedent for any jury’s ability to do so. All the government has to do is impugn the jury’s political outlook and the right judge will overturn their verdict, forcing their will.

  51. Joe says:

    Then one step worse… they’ll make it so a “not guilty” verdict can be overturned by an activist judge because the jury didn’t give him the “guilty” verdict he was looking for.

  52. Ciampino says:

    I thought his adopted kids were Irish?

  53. m a says:

    Given ‘sanctuary’ and the states aiding and abetting the violation of immigration law– our criminal justice system is already a farce.

  54. BrandonKD5 says:

    There is no way this doesn’t get applied to white men, when all of a sudden the lefties will realize how much they effed up

  55. […] Supreme Court Ruling Allows Verdicts to Be Nullified if a Juror Is Found to Have Politically Incorre… […]

  56. Jerry_In_Detroit says:

    Does this apply to Supreme Court decisions?

  57. Douglas Cowdrick says:

    It’s a 4-4 court now. I don’t see the present nominee if he gets seated going for this. Plus there are quite a few justices past 75 years old.
    It’s horrible to say this but Justice Ruth, “I’m moving to New Zealand if Trump wins”, Ginsburg has had cancer twice and is 83 years old. There are quite a few people out there saying “Yeah Cancer!” if she gets it again.
    Quite a few more are over 70. Sadly Obama’s Justices are both under 70. Merge their two intellects together and you don’t get a decent traffic court judge. They’ll be around for decades.

  58. mojojojo says:

    We will see appeals now simply because there was a white person on the jury. Thanks supremes!

  59. mojojojo says:

    C’mon. Everyone knows that it’s impossible for blacks to be racist. /s

  60. mojojojo says:

    Any non-white or non-Christian is now a special protected class “race.”

  61. […] This story did not get much coverage, but has the potential to be huge.  It will almost invariably lead to endless appeals and an end to the anonymous jury system, with jurors being investigated after the fact for any beliefs that might exonerate those found guilty of crimes.  It also fits in perfectly with the general left-wing assault on civil liberties ranging from practice of Christianity to freedom of speech to freedom of association.  Now jurors can be publicly excoriated if they are found to have uttered something politically incorrect at any point prior to or during a trial involving some “minority.” […]

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy