Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Subject: Re: Fate of the FOIA
Message-ID: <1991May31.203017.19854@Think.COM>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Reply-To: barmar@think.com
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
References: <1qes34w164w@cellar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 20:30:17 GMT
Lines: 37

In article <1qes34w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes:
>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.

>   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?

I'm not in the legal profession, so please excuse any mistakes I make....

Isn't it already the case that the lawyers may exclude jurors for many
reasons, some of which would actually make them *better* jurors?

From your summary of the decision, it sounds like all the Supreme Court was
being asked to rule on was whether this particular exclusion was racially
motivated.  They decided that it wasn't, and since there are no other rules
that prohibit this type of exclusion it was permitted.

In this case, I can understand the motivation of the Court.  Bilingual
jurors are hearing a slightly different case than the one that is recorded
on the official, translated transcript.  And if the lawyers are depending
on the translation, they may not realize what the jurors are hearing, and
subtle distinctions may be important points in a case.  In this case, it
was the prosecution that wanted the jurors barred, in which case it seems
like a problem they should be stuck with.  But what if it were a
court-appointed defense attorney that were prevented from excluding a
bilingual juror, and therefore didn't understand all the testimony; in this
case, the defendent's only recourse would be to try to convince another
court that he received an unfair trial due to the assignment of an
incompetent PD, right?
-- 
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar