Racism and National Origin Discrimination

 

Spencer v. Georgia , 
500 U.S. 960, 114 L. Ed.2d 727, 111 S. Ct. 2276 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in denial of cert. )

Improper for jurors to utter racial slurs concerning petitioner during deliberations.

Williams v. Price, 
238 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2001)

Where petitioner claimed that a juror lied during voir dire when he denied harboring any racial bias, the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by failing to consider testimony by a trial witness concerning a post-verdict encounter with the juror who allegedly uttered racial slurs. The case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the claim.

United States v. Henley, 
238 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2001)

Remanded for hearing in light of Dutkel, infra, in federal prosecution where co-defendant attempted to bribe juror. Court found that attempted bribery of the juror was, prima facie, jury tampering, therefore, invoking a strong presumption of prejudice, manifest in juror's resulting intense anxiety. Court found error in trial court's rejecting without hearing "African-American defendants' claim that juror who allegedly used the word "nigger" was racially biased, without making any findings concerning whether juror actually made a racist statement, and if so, its specific content" and required lower court to conduct hearing on issue, and, specifically, excepting juror testimony concerning racial bias exempt from Rule 606(b) prohibitions.

United States v. Rouse, 
100 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 1996)

New trial ordered based on evidence of racial prejudice in jury room; the court declared that racial prejudice in the jury room can not and will not be tolerated or condoned.

United States v. Heller, 
785 F.2d 1524 (11th Cir. 1986)

Tax evasion conviction was reversed because jurors made anti-Semitic "jokes" and religious remarks. The court dismissed the jurors' denial that they were only joking, remarking that the bigotry in this case was "reminiscent of a less civilized era." Id. at 1528.

Jimenez v. Heyliger, 
792 F.Supp. 910 (D. Puerto Rico 1992)

Medical malpractice verdict was reversed and remanded for a new trial because security guard, placed in charge of the jury, stayed inside the deliberation room, brought jurors requested items related to the defendant's claim he had not committed negligence. An additional ground of misconduct consisted of remarks an alternate juror made to a bailiff concerning the plaintiff's national origin which indicated that other jurors had discussed her ethnicity and national origin.

Tobias v. Smith, 
468 F. Supp. 1287 (W.D.N.Y. 1979)

Habeas corpus petition requesting evidentiary hearing on jury misconduct was granted because of racist remarks, including one juror's remark that "You can't tell one black from another" and a second juror admonished his fellow jurors not to accept the word of a black person over that of a white person.

People v. Rivera , 
304 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003 )

Habeas corpus petition requesting evidentiary hearing on jury misconduct was granted because of racist remarks, including one juror's remark that "You can't tell one black from another" and a second juror admonished his fellow jurors not to accept the word of a black person over that of a white person.

State v. Varner , 
643 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. 2002 )

Holding that court below applied wrong standard, supreme court reverses gun conviction where juror had been overheard making racially biased comments; question was possible prejudice to defendant, not actual, and trial court should have engaged in serious questioning of jurors.

Lam v. Chung-Ko-Cheng , 
2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1272 (N.Y. Civ. Aug. 31, 2001 )

Verdict set aside in defamation case where several jurors used racially abusive language against others to coerce compromise verdict; white male juror accused by others on panel of conspiring with white male lawyer for plaintiff; African-American juror who sided with white male on evidence was derided as "Uncle Tom."

Bynum v. ESAB Group, Inc. , 
2001 WL 704400 (Mich. App. Mar. 23, 2001 )

Trial court properly granted new trial in civil case where one juror revealed that other jurors harbored racial animus against African-American plaintiff and attorney; court rejects argument that juror affidavits cannot be considered in support of claim.

Marshall v. State, 
854 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 2003)

In death penalty case, the post-conviction court erred by summarily denying juror misconduct claim where it was alleged that a woman called defense counsel post-trial claiming to have been a juror at petitioner’s trial and stating, among other things, that some jurors told racial jokes about petitioner, some jurors said they would vote to convict and for a life sentence so that petitioner could be returned to prison to kill more black inmates, and that some jurors read and discussed outside articles concerning the trial.

State v. Johnson,
 630 N.W.2d 79 (S.D. 2001 )

Reversal of rape conviction required where defendant was African-American, victim was Caucasian, and where one juror commented to another juror, "I have a rope," to which the other juror responded, "I have a tree," despite trial court's finding that jurors were just joking and could be fair.

State v. Phillips,
731 A.2d 101 (N.J. App. Div. 1999)

Trial court's inadequate inquiry concerning dismissal of African-American juror who complained about racial comment made by another juror during deliberations required new trial; court made no effort to identify which juror made racial comment, or to question jurors individually about the incident.

Connecticut v. Santiago,
245 Conn. 301, 715 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1998)

Case remanded for further proceedings where juror alleged to have used racial epithet ("spic") to describe defendant. Court sanctioned wide-ranging inquiry into circumstances in which remark made, and persons involved, because of extreme importance of avoiding convictions based on race.

Fisher v. State, 
690 A.2d 917 (Del. 1996)

New trial ordered where defendant was convicted by less than 12 impartial jurors; one juror told other jurors that any African-American male in the area where defendant was arrested was guilty of drug dealing.

Wright v. CTL Dist., Inc., 
650 So.2d 641 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Civil verdict was reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because jurors allegedly made racist remarks about the plaintiff and bailiff answered jurors' legal questions, rather than getting the judge to respond to the jurors' questions.

State v. Brown, 
668 A.2d 1288 (Conn. 1995)

Where anonymous juror letter contained allegations of jury exposure to racially derogatory remarks regarding defendant allegedly made by court officials, remand required; opinion notes that trial court must conduct preliminary inquiry, on record, whenever it is presented with any allegations of jury misconduct in a criminal case.

After Hour Welding, Inc. v. Laneil Management Co., 
324 N.W.2d 686 (Wis. 1982)

Civil verdict for plaintiff was reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because one juror overheard another juror make an anti-Semitic remark about a corporate officer being "A Cheap Jew." Id. at 688.

Tapia v. Barker, 
206 Cal. Rptr. 803 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)

Civil judgment reversed when Mexican-American civil plaintiff was discriminated against by jurors who negatively remarked on his race during deliberations.