New Mexico Supreme Court: People who don’t speak English must be included on juries

posted at 9:21 pm on August 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

This is, as Charles Cooke notes, actually the correct decision. The court didn’t manufacture this rule; it’s right there in Article VII of the state constitution. If you think judges are too prone to substituting their own judgments for the people’s, then this is the ruling for you.

Cooke wonders why a state wouldn’t want/expect its citizens to learn English by the time they’re 18 and jury-eligible. Good question, but I’m more intrigued by the practical implications here.

Michael Anthony Samora’s appeal argued that his convictions should be reversed because a Bernalillo County judge excused a Spanish-speaking prospective juror who had trouble understanding English.

The Supreme Court said it agrees with that argument but also said Samora’s defense needed to object during the trial but didn’t…

In Samora’s case, the prospective juror said on his jury questionnaire he didn’t understand English well enough to write in English, and the judge told him an interpreter would be provided if the man was selected to serve on the jury.

However, the judge dismissed the man after he acknowledged he was not able to understand a large portion of the court proceedings.

The defendant was convicted of murder one. If his attorney had objected during voir dire, presumably this would be grounds for mistrial.

Here’s what I mean by “practical implications.” If you’ve got 11 jurors who are listening to the witnesses’ testimony in English and a 12th juror who’s listening to an interpreter translating that testimony into another language, aren’t the jurors technically hearing different testimony? Is that a due process violation? You run into a variation of this problem when a witness can’t speak English and his testimony needs to be filtered through a translator, but at least in that case the entire courtroom’s hearing the same (translated) evidence. Besides, the witness can’t be disqualified on language grounds; he’s indispensable to the court if he has material evidence about the defendant’s guilt or innocent. Not so with a juror. Plus, consider the disruption of having to translate every single word of the trial, from bench rulings to witness testimony to opening and closing arguments, for the benefit of one person. The court has no choice but to do that if the defendant can’t speak English, but it does have a choice when selecting jurors. And of course the juror’s interpreter would have to sit in on deliberations too, even though that’s supposed to be off-limits to everyone not on the jury.

And yet, jury duty is an obligation of citizenship. If a (native-born) citizen’s not required to learn English in order to vote or fulfill other civic obligations, why bounce him from jury service because of it? What you could do as a work-around is put Spanish-speakers in a separate jury pool and conduct some trials entirely in Spanish (assuming the defendant also speaks it, of course). That would solve the problem of people hearing different testimony while ensuring that non-English speakers get to serve, but of course that puts you even further away from Cooke’s aspiration of everyone learning English by the time they’re 18. There’s less of an incentive to do that if the justice system begins splitting off into English- and Spanish-language tracks, which in turn will only encourage the cultural balkanization of America. Not sure what the answer is. “Learn English” isn’t an option, per constitutional law, in New Mexico.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

the correct decision.

Have fun New Mexico. You dumbasses.

CW on August 14, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Not my peers?

Bmore on August 14, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Really? Would anybody here want somebody on their jury who can’t understand a witnesses testimony without the aid of an interpreter? How do we know the interpreter is correctly doing their job?

HiJack on August 14, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Including White Hispanics???

How about Rachel Geantel?

Electrongod on August 14, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Electrongod on August 14, 2013 at 9:25 PM

White hispanics. That’s rich.

HiJack on August 14, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Oh, that’ll come in handy for people accused of sedition against the Emperor God-King in the Dependent Territories of California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida.

Jeddite on August 14, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Move from New Mexico..?

d1carter on August 14, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Oh, that’ll come in handy for peopleRepublicans accused of sedition against the Emperor God-King in the Dependent Territories of California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida.

Jeddite on August 14, 2013 at 9:27 PM

How do Canadians handle the French problem?

slickwillie2001 on August 14, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Really? Would anybody here want somebody on their jury who can’t understand a witnesses testimony without the aid of an interpreter? How do we know the interpreter is correctly doing their job?

HiJack on August 14, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Yeh this on its face appears not to be concerned with justice but more with the “rights” of some to sit on juries.

CW on August 14, 2013 at 9:28 PM

I live less than an hour east of that pathetic state. God Bless Texas!

annoyinglittletwerp on August 14, 2013 at 9:29 PM

What if they’re deaf?

faraway on August 14, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Justice is blind.

faraway on August 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

How can I have a jury of my peers in NM when all my peers speak perfect English?

It seems Unconstitutional to have my fate decided by someone who doesn’t have a clue as to what’s going on during the trial and interpreters suck as they often get things wrong in a rush.

HotAirian on August 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

What if they’re deaf?

faraway on August 14, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Do they understand English?

Bmore on August 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Que?

predator on August 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Slick ,,,, from wiki for what its worth:

The official languages of Canada are English and French, which “have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada” according to Canada’s constitution.

mandates that the federal government conduct its business in both official languages and provide government services in both languages;
encourages or mandates lower tiers of government (most notably the provinces and territories, but also some municipalities) to conduct themselves in both official languages and to provide services in both English and French rather than in just one or the other;

CW on August 14, 2013 at 9:31 PM

predator on August 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Lolz! Exactly.

Bmore on August 14, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Idiocracy..too stupid to be true, yet it makes sense to liberals.

Mimzey on August 14, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Interpreter.
Sub-titles.
Secondary Audio Channel.

Problem solved.

Electrongod on August 14, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Just Wrong.

Oil Can on August 14, 2013 at 9:34 PM

If I was a non-English speaker in New Mexico I would be pissed. One less excuse for getting out of jury duty.

Mark1971 on August 14, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Electrongod on August 14, 2013 at 9:33 PM

And during the deliberations?

Oil Can on August 14, 2013 at 9:34 PM

What if they’re deaf?

faraway on August 14, 2013 at 9:29 PM

What language is sign language? Did they learn it in English or Spanish?/

Patriot Vet on August 14, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Don’t worry, this won’t be a problem much longer. As Rubio, Schumer and McCain keep telling us, you’ll have to speak English to get amnesty and be put on the path to citizenship.

Mark1971 on August 14, 2013 at 9:36 PM

And yet, jury duty is an obligation of citizenship.

No it’s not.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 14, 2013 at 9:36 PM

How do Canadians handle the French problem?

slickwillie2001 on August 14, 2013 at 9:27 PM

slickwillie:YOU RANG:0
========================

Justice in Both Languages
**************************

English and French
*******************

are the official languages of the courts in Ontario.
*****************************************************

The Rights of French-Speaking Individuals in the Ontario Justice System

1. The Right to a Bilingual Court Proceeding for Criminal and Non-Jury Civil Cases

You have the right to a bilingual court proceeding for all criminal and non-jury civil cases held in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The right to a bilingual proceeding extends to all other hearings associated with the proceeding, such as procedural motions, pre-trial hearings, hearings to assess costs.

During a bilingual proceeding, the judge, the Crown attorney (in criminal cases), the registrar/clerk and the court reporter/monitor are bilingual. You may address the court directly in French. Witnesses testify in the language in which they feel most comfortable and the court provides interpreters as needed.

In a criminal case, if you are entitled to a jury trial, you may ask that the trial take place before jurors who speak French. It may be necessary to change the location of the trial to an area where there are enough French-speaking people to form a jury.

You may exercise your right to a bilingual proceeding by:

Filing or issuing your first document in French
Filing a requisition form requesting a bilingual proceeding
Filing a written statement with the court requesting a bilingual proceeding

Making an oral statement to the court during an appearance in the proceeding that expresses the desire that the proceeding be conducted as a bilingual proceeding

In the case of a provincial offence, if an offence notice, summons, parking infraction notice or notice of impending conviction has been issued, you have the right to request a bilingual trial. The prosecutor will be bilingual if the matter is prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

If you are served with an offence notice, parking infraction notice or notice of impending conviction, you may request a bilingual trial by checking the appropriate box on the notice of intention to appear. In the case of a summons, you may request a bilingual trial when the court date is set.
2. The Right to a Civil Jury Trial with a Bilingual Jury in Certain Areas of the Province

In a civil case, you can receive a bilingual jury in: the counties of Essex, Middlesex, Prescott and Russell, Renfrew, Simcoe and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; the County of Welland as it existed on December 31, 1969; the territorial districts of Algoma, Cochrane, Kenora, Nipissing, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Timiskaming; the Municipality of Chatham Kent; the City of Hamilton; the City of Ottawa; the Regional Municipality of Peel; the City of Greater Sudbury; and the City of Toronto ( Courts of Justice Act, s. 126, Schedules 1 & 2).
=====================

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/justiceinbothlanguages.asp

canopfor on August 14, 2013 at 9:37 PM

What about southern or hillbilly dialect? Are we to be left out?

This is an outrage!

NHLB!

predator on August 14, 2013 at 9:38 PM

New Mexico conducting trials allowing for non-english speaking jurors…and Nancy Pelosi campaigning for California to be a sanctuary state for illegals….just another day in another week of this country goin to infierno

workingclass artist on August 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Michael Anthony Samora’s appeal argued that his convictions should be reversed because a Bernalillo County judge excused a Spanish-speaking prospective juror who had trouble understanding English.
================================================================

Hmmm,Southern Border sensitivities sumpins eh!!!

canopfor on August 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM

OT:

Allah were is the clown post? I have snarky post ready in notepad. I know get a life

Oil Can on August 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Madness.

Midas on August 14, 2013 at 9:42 PM

And during the deliberations?

Oil Can on August 14, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Oh…

Dang..

Electrongod on August 14, 2013 at 9:43 PM

workingclass artist on August 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Susana Martinez is actually less of a conservative and much more of a moderate. A lot of state-border NMers would rather work in TX than NM. I see lots of NM plates here. They’re commuters.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 14, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Why do we let people vote when they can’t even speak English?

mountainaires on August 14, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Really? Would anybody here want somebody on their jury who can’t understand a witnesses testimony without the aid of an interpreter? How do we know the interpreter is correctly doing their job?

HiJack on August 14, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Sounds like just another thing that won’t matter whether you f*cking like it or not, because it’s coming to your life come hell or high water. *Your* rights don’t matter, see?

Midas on August 14, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Why do we let people vote when they can’t even speak English?

mountainaires on August 14, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Because they vote more the way the politicians – all of them – prefer. More so than we do.

Midas on August 14, 2013 at 9:47 PM

“Learn English” isn’t an option, per constitutional law, in New Mexico.

Perhaps they might want to rethink that.

GarandFan on August 14, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Hey! No fair! HotAir digested my comment. *huff*

Rephrase: So what the court is saying is that even Rachel Jenteal can be on a jury in New Mexico.

SouthernGent on August 14, 2013 at 9:49 PM

What you could do as a work-around is put Spanish-speakers in a separate jury pool and conduct some trials entirely in Spanish (assuming the defendant also speaks it, of course).

Actually, that retarded State Constitution seems to put Spanish on a level with English:

The right of any citizen of the state to vote, hold office or sit upon juries, shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of religion, race, language or color, or inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages except as may be otherwise provided in this constitution;

But I would say that you and Cooke are incorrect that this was the correct decision by the judge. The idiotic State Constitution says that a citizen has “the right” to sit on a jury, not that any trial has the obligation to let that citizen be part of that jury. There is a big difference between a citizen having “a right to sit on a jury” and some idiotic decision that placing an illiterate and moronic person (in the context of the trial) on a jury that he cannot possibly understand the workings of is “required” by that clause in the moronic State Constitution. It is most certainly not.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 14, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Why do we let people vote when they can’t even speak English?

mountainaires on August 14, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Because The Messiah, The One, is multi-cultural…
Universal…

Being lied to…
In whatever language…

Is well understood..

And accepted by the left.

Electrongod on August 14, 2013 at 9:51 PM

And yet, jury duty is an obligation of citizenship.

No it’s not.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 14, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Yeah … allah’s making a total mess of this story.

Just to add detail to your point, a citizen has the right to a jury trial, not the obligation to sit on a jury. But … making up sh!t that’s “in the Constitution” is all the rage, these days.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 14, 2013 at 9:52 PM

And I wanted Chinese as a second language for my kid…

patman77 on August 14, 2013 at 9:55 PM

And yet, jury duty is an obligation of citizenship.

According to that state Constitution, it’s a “right”. Evidently, in New Mexico, anyone can demand to be put on any jury they want. They have a “right”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM

OT:

Allah were is the clown post? I have snarky post ready in notepad. I know get a life

Oil Can on August 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Oil Can:I sent the entire 10 yards,ya got me??!!:)

canopfor on August 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Insanity

WisCon on August 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Speaking of English,our City became so-called “Racists”,
and became the black-sheep of Canada!!
======================================

We had the same type problem,everything had to be
English and French,so our city manned up,and said
English only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)
======================================

Sault Ste. Marie language resolution

The Sault Ste. Marie language resolution was a government motion passed on January 29, 1990 by Sault Ste. Marie City Council, the governing body of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, which resolved that English was the sole working language of city government. The resolution ignited a national controversy which made the city a flashpoint in the Meech Lake Accord debate.

The Sault Ste. Marie resolution was not the first of its kind in Ontario, but Sault Ste. Marie was the largest municipality to pass such a resolution and bore the brunt of the controversy.

Sault Ste. Marie was originally founded by French-speaking missionaries in 1623 but had become overwhelmingly English-speaking by the twentieth century.
====================================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sault_Ste._Marie_language_resolution

canopfor on August 11, 2010 at 11:23 PM

canopfor on August 14, 2013 at 10:05 PM

OT:

Allah were is the clown post? I have snarky post ready in notepad. I know get a life

My Notepad is bigger then yours…

:)

Electrongod on August 14, 2013 at 10:07 PM

In fact it says (or strongly implies) you can’t be prevented from voting, holding office or sitting on a jury even if you speak neither English nor Spanish. Passed with American Indians in mind, I guess.

Seth Halpern on August 14, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Really? Would anybody here want somebody on their jury who can’t understand a witnesses testimony without the aid of an interpreter? How do we know the interpreter is correctly doing their job?

HiJack on August 14, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Good point. The interpreter show act it out with hand puppets. That way everyone could see what was being conveyed.
Makes sense to me.

Mimzey on August 14, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Que…?

Seven Percent Solution on August 14, 2013 at 10:14 PM

show = should.

Mimzey on August 14, 2013 at 10:14 PM

In fact it says (or strongly implies) you can’t be prevented from voting, holding office or sitting on a jury even if you speak neither English nor Spanish.

Seth Halpern on August 14, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Not “can’t be prevented” but actually have a “right”. In New Mexico, you have the right to hold any office you want. You don’t even have to go through an election or anything. Just pick and office and move in. It’s your “right”.

I’d really love to meet the retards who wrote that constitution … in a dark alley.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 14, 2013 at 10:15 PM

The real question is who the heck wants to be on a jury for most cases? Getting kick off the jury would be one of the few positives of only speaking Spanish in America I would think.

Same for gays who are going to find this out once the love wears off and we start getting gay divorces at a record pace about 5 years down the line. The “bottoms” are going the clean out the “tops” bank accounts and it won’t be fun anymore.

William Eaton on August 14, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Future Headline:

New Mexico Supreme Court: People who don’t speak English are blind must be included on juries in cockpits as pilots

ShainS on August 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Let’em prove their actually citizens first… then I’ll think about it.

CPT. Charles on August 14, 2013 at 10:35 PM

“Learn English” isn’t an option, per constitutional law, in New Mexico.

Perhaps they might want to rethink that.

GarandFan on August 14, 2013 at 9:49 PM

This is (supposed to be) America. You can speak any language you want.

But you shouldn’t expect special preferences because of that choice, because ultimately what language you speak is a choice. It’s your choice as to whether you’re going to be able to communicate effectively and get along or not, get certain jobs, learn in school and so on.

And I do believe that English is our de facto official language and that immigrants really should learn it as soon as they are able. I also believe that knowing English be a condition of Citizenship (like that really matters that much anymore other than a good reason for the government to rob you). But no one should be forced to speak English, or forced to do anything for that matter in my view.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 14, 2013 at 10:39 PM

workingclass artist on August 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Susana Martinez is actually less of a conservative and much more of a moderate. A lot of state-border NMers would rather work in TX than NM. I see lots of NM plates here. They’re commuters.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 14, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Don’t know much about her though I liked her speech at the convention.

NM is beautiful country.

workingclass artist on August 14, 2013 at 10:40 PM

How does sitting on a jury get to be a “right”??? It is a duty…a civic obligation…which may or may not be imposed depending upon the circumstances.

Blaise on August 14, 2013 at 11:10 PM

New Mexico Supreme Court: People who don’t speak English must be included on juries

…fixed!

KOOLAID2 on August 14, 2013 at 11:32 PM

Que?

predator on August 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Missing video link

Shy Guy on August 14, 2013 at 11:33 PM

How do Canadians handle the French problem?

slickwillie2001 on August 14, 2013 at 9:27 PM

With Canadian laws?

James on August 14, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Regarding this appeal, though…it goes nowhere if the juror who replaced the person who didn’t speak English was by all counts a qualified juror.

You get a jury of your peers for your trial. You don’t get a jury of people you hand-picked for your trial, especially after the trial is over. Counsel on both sides can object to specific potential jurors and have them dismissed before the trial begins. The judge can also disqualify certain potential jurors. But if all of the eventual jurors are qualified, that’s it…there’s no mistrial.

Procedurally, they can change how non-English speaking jurors are evaluated. It has no bearing on the legitimacy of any specific trial’s outcome.

James on August 14, 2013 at 11:53 PM

What if they’re deaf?

faraway on August 14, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Do they understand English?

Bmore on August 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

What language is sign language? Did they learn it in English or Spanish?/

Patriot Vet on August 14, 2013 at 9:36 PM

I am an attorney. I also happen to be Deaf.

Deaf people have a right to sit on the jury and to have an American Sign Language Interpreter (or other kind of Sign Language Interpreter such as Cued Speech)

American Sign Language is its own language. Its is not English in signed form. It has its own grammatical and linguistic rules.

Deaf people sat on juries before in many cases and served wonderfully on the juries.

Conservative Samizdat on August 14, 2013 at 11:59 PM

How does sitting on a jury giving up your free time to do work for the People’s Collective get to be a “right”??? It is a duty…a civic obligation…which may or may not be imposed depending upon the circumstances.

Blaise on August 14, 2013 at 11:10 PM

You may want to think on this a little more.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 15, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Soon they won’t let you on juries in NM if you DON’T speak spanish.

Seems like the vast majority of the people who go to trial for criminal cases in NM are ‘hispanic’, so I reckon it is only fair.

LegendHasIt on August 15, 2013 at 12:09 AM

How long before they allow normalized “undocumented Democrats” on these juries ?
(No sarcasm intended)

FlaMurph on August 15, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Maybe they can argue in front of this court also.

pat on August 15, 2013 at 12:57 AM

If we were able to attach a name, political affiliation & general area of residence, they would reconsider when proposing such outrageous amendments, but because everything printed is anonymous & there’s no journalistic cojones they get away with it.

RdLake on August 15, 2013 at 1:14 AM

How about lawyers who don’t know any Law?

And judges who don’t have brains?

Inclusiveness for all!

profitsbeard on August 15, 2013 at 2:13 AM

Can’t wait for the “lost in translation” appeal.

Job security for lawyers and judges.

WryTrvllr on August 15, 2013 at 4:58 AM

By the same logic then, a defendent who speaks not a word of English is not eligible for an interpreter, because language is no barrier to the fairness of a trial.
Besides when our GOP investigates the administration for suspected illegal behavior they always pretend not to comprehend the question….

Don L on August 15, 2013 at 6:11 AM

Assuming the decision is correct, then, obviously, the NM constitution is a suicide pact.

Quartermaster on August 15, 2013 at 6:55 AM

LMAO…what a joke.

I had to learn Spanish and live in Central America for three years (Military post).

There’s a reason English is the “international ” language for Aviation, Maritime, Business ….

SwabJockey on August 15, 2013 at 7:21 AM

That’s idiotic.

One of the main points of a jury is to judge credibility witnesses. Someone who doesn’t speak the language of the witness can’t judge the credibility of the witness. You can’t do that when you are getting everything through interpreters. What’s more, you can’t get any nuance out of what the person says – the slang, the word choice, etc. Instead, you get the interpreters spin on it.

It’s a mockery of the jury system. Why even have a jury at all? the jurors may as well be reading transcripts instead of seeing witnesses if they have to receive all of the witnesses information through an interpreter.

We are no longer a nation of law or even of common sense. The judges here are all highly educated people, yet are too stupid to understand common sense. Ideology trumps reason.

It is ridiculous. We truly need a new revolution and need to start over. We are passed the point where anything can be salvaged from the current mess.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2013 at 7:31 AM

Personal Experience:
As a part of my responsibilities, was hauled in to defend my employer in a State Hearing regarding disallowed unemployment benefits. Employee, non-english speaking, suffered a vehicle breakdown and had no alternative transportation to get to work.

Via the interpreter, employee was asked five times “Had you ever contacted the employer to let them know the vehicle’s repairs had been completed?” Each response was a recitation that “no money- no repairs/ borrowed vehicles from relatives friends to run errands etc.”–After the fifth try, the Hearing Judge interrupted with (a forceful) “Si or No, Senor Employee”.

Alas, the Judge ruled that unemployment benefits would be ‘allowed’ from the date the vehicle was repaired- effectively, as if the employee was on a ‘leave of absence’. California will burn in hell, no doubt.

socalcon on August 15, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Does that mean I have to learn Farsi and other middle eastern dialects because I live in Michigan?

mechkiller_k on August 15, 2013 at 8:16 AM

What the f*** do I care, you pr**ks will never take me alive.

/

M240H on August 15, 2013 at 8:56 AM

I can see this running into all sorts of other hurdles. Who gets to choose the interpreter? What if one side or the other thinks the person isn’t objective in their translation? There could be all sorts of breakdown as to which word should be used in a particular sentence. Just think about all the synonyms in the English language that have shades of meaning.

Then of course there is the issue of just how many of the dozens of languages spoken in this country would need to be included.

hopeful on August 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Oh this is going to be great for due process….

TXAction on August 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

And yet, jury duty is an obligation of citizenship.

No. It is not. I wish people would quit saying that as if it’s true.

Jury pools are typically pulled from voter registration and/or driver’s license renewals, neither of which are compulsory in this nation.

ButterflyDragon on August 15, 2013 at 1:19 PM

terryann was missing in this thread, you “Hispanic haters”.

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Oh, that’ll come in handy for people accused of sedition against the Emperor God-King in the Dependent Territories of California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida.

Jeddite on August 14, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Not really. If it comes to that, language will be irrelevant. The jury, like the trials themselves, will just be for show, the outcome already predetermined.

hawkeye54 on August 15, 2013 at 4:28 PM