Central Texas prosecutor fired for racial remarks

[thetragichippy]

Thoughts?

 

I think it's ridiculous. He claimed he would do the same for either race.....

 

This is one reason hatred on both sides continues.....Two people cannot have different views and get along.......

 

 

 

A Central Texas prosecutor has been fired for comments he made in dismissing a prospective juror who was a member of the NAACP, comparing the juror's membership to white supremacy.

 

Travis County prosecutor Steve Brand made the comments last month during jury selection for a robbery trial. Transcripts show he rejected the juror because she was an "activist" and had posted on her Facebook page a link to "The Negro Motorist Green Book," a guide to safe travel for African-Americans in the Jim Crow era.

 

The Austin American-Statesman reports (http://bit.ly/1hLH3gu ) Brand said he would take the same approach with a white juror because "we wouldn't want a white activist or a white supremacist."

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg says the comments were racially insensitive.

 

Brand's lawyer, Tom Nesbitt, described Lehmberg's punishment as "bizarre."

 

 

 

 

http://www.ksat.com/news/Central-Texas-prosecutor-fired-for-racial-remarks/26453658

[stevenash]

This stuff has gone too far. One must walk on eggshells anymore or they must simply not speak because somebody, somewhere, in some way, will be offended by it. I don't like Kobe Bryant and I am sure somebody will turn that into racial hatred when it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

[BLUEDOVE3]

Thoughts?

 

I think it's ridiculous. He claimed he would do the same for either race.....

 

This is one reason hatred on both sides continues.....Two people cannot have different views and get along.......

 

 

 

A Central Texas prosecutor has been fired for comments he made in dismissing a prospective juror who was a member of the NAACP, comparing the juror's membership to white supremacy.

 

Travis County prosecutor Steve Brand made the comments last month during jury selection for a robbery trial. Transcripts show he rejected the juror because she was an "activist" and had posted on her Facebook page a link to "The Negro Motorist Green Book," a guide to safe travel for African-Americans in the Jim Crow era.

 

The Austin American-Statesman reports (http://bit.ly/1hLH3gu ) Brand said he would take the same approach with a white juror because "we wouldn't want a white activist or a white supremacist."

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg says the comments were racially insensitive.

 

Brand's lawyer, Tom Nesbitt, described Lehmberg's punishment as "bizarre."

 

 

 

 

http://www.ksat.com/news/Central-Texas-prosecutor-fired-for-racial-remarks/26453658

Its really sad during these trying times when a member of the NAACP or the NAACP itself is compared to a race supremacist group. Vey sad. Send him to sensitivity training to learn the difference.

[PN-G bamatex]

The federal and most state judicial codes are pretty clear in prohibiting the striking of a potential juror on the basis of race, sex or religion. If that was indeed the case, then the termination is perfectly acceptable.

 

That said, activism in the name of a particular minority group could present a legitimate conflict of interest for a juror, and the lines between striking a juror based on minority status and striking the same juror because of activism can be very blurry. Any attorney who tried to do so would surely know he's on shaky ground, and that he would need significant evidence to legitimately raise a question of bias.

 

I would want to see the complete facts of the case for which voir dire was occurring and the facts surround the juror in question's supposed activism before formulating an opinion. On its face, though, I have to admit that a Facebook post and mere membership in the NAACP doesn't quite seem like enough. The case must have had some explicit, clearly identifiable link to racial issues for that to be reasonable.

[thetragichippy]

Its really sad during these trying times when a member of the NAACP or the NAACP itself is compared to a race supremacist group. Vey sad. Send him to sensitivity training to learn the difference.

 

 

He actually said White activist group OR white Supremacist group.

 

It appears to me he was trying to take race favoritism out of the equation, and I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[thetragichippy]

The federal and most state judicial codes are pretty clear in prohibiting the striking of a potential juror on the basis of race, sex or religion. If that was indeed the case, then the termination is perfectly acceptable.

 

That said, activism in the name of a particular minority group could present a legitimate conflict of interest for a juror, and the lines between striking a juror based on minority status and striking the same juror because of activism can be very blurry. Any attorney who tried to do so would surely know he's on shaky ground, and that he would need significant evidence to legitimately raise a question of bias.

 

I would want to see the complete facts of the case for which voir dire was occurring and the facts surround the juror in question's supposed activism before formulating an opinion. On its face, though, I have to admit that a Facebook post and mere membership in the NAACP doesn't quite seem like enough. The case must have had some explicit, clearly identifiable link to racial issues for that to be reasonable.

 

Would you want members of the KKK on a jury judging a black person? I don't feel that would be fair.  I know I wouldn't want the Black Panthers judging me for anything.....

 

And he did not strike her for her race.....he struck her for affiliation with a pro-race group....

 

Thoughts? 

[BLUEDOVE3]

He actually said White activist group OR white Supremacist group.

 

It appears to me he was trying to take race favoritism out of the equation, and I see nothing wrong with that.

A mere play with words...potato/ pa-tot-toe  ;)

[PN-G bamatex]

Would you want members of the KKK on a jury judging a black person? I don't feel that would be fair.  I know I wouldn't want the Black Panthers judging me for anything.....

 

And he did not strike her for her race.....he struck her for affiliation with a pro-race group....

 

Thoughts? 

 

The KKK and the NAACP aren't exactly analogous. The Black Panthers can be put in the same boat as the KKK - virtually every organization that tracks dangerous organizations classifies both as hate groups - but the NAACP is less "torches and pitchforks," more political advocacy.

 

Like I said, the only way I can really consider this reasonable is if membership in the NAACP might have a direct bearing on a juror's ability to determine the facts of the case. Because most attorneys know this is a tricky game to play any time race even becomes remotely involved, I'm going to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and say he probably had some strong grounds. But until I see the facts of the case, I can't really say that conclusively.

[tvc184]

The prosecutor makes a valid argument however he should know that he can never mention race per se in court unless it deals with a description of a suspect. 

[tvc184]

The KKK and the NAACP aren't exactly analogous..............

 

They do not have to be the same. Any person can be rejected for cause and that cause can be any prejudice toward either side of the case in question. Whether one group is the exact same an another does not matter. If a person is an activist for a cause, that person really should not be on a jury deciding an issue. 

 

The criminal's defense attorney even stated that it was an overreaction. There is no problem contesting a strike based on race and I have sat on juries (I think that I have sat on four juries in both state and federal court) with such challenges. It is not every case but far from rare that a defense attorney will challenge a strike. 

[PN-G bamatex]

They do not have to be the same. Any person can be rejected for cause and that cause can be any prejudice toward either side of the case in question. Whether one group is the exact same an another does not matter. If a person is an activist for a cause, that person really should not be on a jury deciding an issue. 

 

The criminal's defense attorney even stated that it was an overreaction. There is no problem contesting a strike based on race and I have sat on juries (I think that I have sat on four juries in both state and federal court) with such challenges. It is not every case but far from rare that a defense attorney will challenge a strike. 

 

You can strike for any reason, but let's be realistic for a minute: striking a juror for racially oriented activism can be easily construed as striking a juror for race. I think most attorneys would know that and would be very careful in striking a juror on those grounds for fear of a challenge that may raise that very question. So in that sense, I would think that the difference between a special interest group and a hate group would at least be somewhat relevant, seeing as it's a lot easier to fight that allegation if the juror was a member of a known hate group than if he or she was a member of an advocacy group.

[tvc184]

You can strike for any reason, but let's be realistic for a minute: striking a juror for racially oriented activism can be easily construed as striking a juror for race. I think most attorneys would know that and would be very careful in striking a juror on those grounds for fear of a challenge that may raise that very question. So in that sense, I would think that the difference between a special interest group and a hate group would at least be somewhat relevant, seeing as it's a lot easier to fight that allegation if the juror was a member of a known hate group than if he or she was a member of an advocacy group.

 

You are going pretty far out to try and rationalize you statement.

 

You cannot strike for any reason as you started out with because you then follow up on race. Race here is not the issue but mindset. How do you strike a member of the KKK without bringing up race? It isn't because he is white but because he is prejudiced and not likely to act fairly by the evidence presented. 

 

An activist for a cause, valid or not, is still an activist. 

 

As far as your claim of fighting an allegation between advocacy and hatred (both to me should be disqualifiers) is meaningless because that is for the opposing attorney to raise and a judge to rule. That happens every day in this country in courtrooms. This isn't an election or popularity contest. It is a plea based on legal grounds and happens any number of times in a trial or the motions leading up to it. 

 

This ADA's termination seems political for various reasons. 

[PAMFAM10]

PLAIN AND SIMPLE THE KKK is a race hate group

[stevenash]

Pamfam- I think you are right about the KKK- Do you know of any race hate groups that are predominantly comprised of blacks?

[thetragichippy]

PLAIN AND SIMPLE THE KKK is a race hate group

 

PLAIN AND SIMPLE THE BLACK PANTHERS is a race hate group

[tvc184]

PLAIN AND SIMPLE THE KKK is a race hate group

 

And if you can show me any legal precedent that says only people belonging to hate groups can be struck from juries and I will say that you are on to something.

 

I have sat on juries and testified in many trials. I have seen people struck and seen the defense attorney contest strikes based on race (Batson strike). In one jury pool the DA had three strikes that were contested. The DA countered that one had a spouse had been convicted of the same crime (I think it was DWI) so the potential juror might be prejudiced against the police (making for an unfair jury), one had been involved in a lawsuit based on the same crime from injuries and I don't remember the other reasoning but the judge ruled that all strikes were fair based on cause and not on race. 

 

A jury is supposed to be fair for both sides and the people serving need to go in with as much of an open mind as possible. In this case a woman is posting material on how to survive while driving black (The Negro Motorist Green Book). To me that appears that she believes that she might be targeted based on race and is even posting survival tips on how to stay away from cops. It doesn't even matter if she is correct, it a preconceived perception (prejudice) that is the problem. Nothing in that article that hippy posted or the others that I have read said that she was struck due to being an NAACP member. He also never claimed she was some kind of supremacist. 

 

I read several articles on this issue and found this as his statement... "It's not because of race. It's because in part she appeared to be an activist, and that's what we don't want. Just as if she was white, we wouldn't want a white activist or a white supremacist." The DA said that she appears to be an "activist", not a "supremacist" or "racist". Looking at her postings, she might very well be an activist for a cause. 

 

I see nothing wrong with his statement. 

 

So I will ask this, what if  the defendant was black as in this case and there was a prospective white juror that was not the member of any hate group. But maybe he had postings he had made on how to survive while being white in a minority neighborhood and had posted The Turner Diaries, just as this woman posted the book about black survival while traveling (published until the early 1960's)? The Turner Diaries was a novel written by a white separatist. Would you want this person sitting in judgment of a family member? Remember that he belongs to no group and just posts thoughts. 

 

Remember that the DA is an elected official and wanted to quickly stop something that might cost votes. That makes his firing political. That might even be within the law as an at will employee but let's call it what it is. I suspect that if a black assistant DA that made the same or similar statements and was fired, we would be seeing an opposite response. 

[PAMFAM10]

PLAIN AND SIMPLE THE BLACK PANTHERS is a race hate group

Yea ..Ok ...agree...but still not the same.

[tvc184]

I must have missed the part where the ADA said he struck the juror for being part of a hate group.