Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlf3.gvl.unisys.com!tredysvr!cellar!rogue
From: rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Fate of the FOIA
Message-ID: <1qes34w164w@cellar.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 91 01:16:59 GMT
Sender: bbs@cellar.UUCP (The Cellar BBS)
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system
Lines: 44

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that bilingual citizens could be barred 
from jurors if their ability could make them skeptical of the official 
translation.

The ruling was made over a murder case in which Dionisio Hernandez was found 
guilty of murder by a jury from which bilingual Hispanics were excluded.  
Latino rights lawyers filed suit for racial discrimination against the two 
jurors who were disqualified, citing the possibility that such exclusions 
could limit the participation of Latinos in jury trials.

In a 6-3 opinion, the Court ruled that the prosecutor's rejection of the 
jurors was npot racially motivated, and that it was legal to exclude them 
because of their ability to give independent interpretations of the evidence.

Writing for four members of the Majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that 
the ruling "does not imply that the exclusion of bilinguals from jury service 
is wise, or that it is Constitutional in all cases."  However, the scope of 
the decision was not limited solely to the Hernandez case.

[source of information: The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5.29.91, which did not offer
a list of the majority members who signed Kennedy's opinion.  Dissenting were 
Justices John Paul Stevens, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun; they 
argued that the prevailing argument "was insufficient to dispel the existing 
inference of racial animus."]


Grouse on:

   No consideration seems to have been made of the rights of jurors to 
examine or question evicdence and testimony given.  The only knowledge a 
juror should have that would cause them to be excluded is that which concerns 
the specific events in the case.  The Supreme Court has ruled that a 
fundamental need of the judicial process - the ability of jurors to study the 
case - may be limited by the prosecution.

   Such a Court would seem hostile to the Fully Informed Juries Act, by 
allowing jurors with definitive skills (language, analytical ability, 
computer skills, etc.) to be excluded from hearing the details of the case.  
What fate would the FIJA have if "expert jurors" may be barred?

Rogue Winter       | "The truth knocks on the door and you say, 
rogue@cellar.uucp  | "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so
uunet!cellar!rogue | it goes away.  Puzzling."
Cellar 215/3369503 |  -Robert Pirsig (quoted in Zen_To_Go, Jon Winokur)