====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
There are, as yet, fewer posts regarding the Zimmerman verdict than I had anticipated. Of course, the verdict stunned me. Many would say that they anticipated nothing else, but that is perhaps the function of afterthought only. With all the political pressure brought to commence the prosecution and the emotions surrounding it a guilty verdict would have been anticipated. Various contributors to this list have asserted that the verdict was the result of "white supremacy." Others point out that it was an all white jury. Still others that it was an all white and all female jury. One adverts to the fact that the racial composition in the jurisdiction was 30 % African American or minority thus implicitly questioning the number of whites on the jury. I did not watch the trial on television. I do not know the composition of the jury venire summoned to court before the panel of jurors was chosen to be examined before being selected as members of the jury. Accordingly, I do not know the number or percentage of venire members or panel members from which the jurors were selected. There has been no information that I am aware of - although it should be available - of how many blacks were among the prospective jurors. Since the jury in Florida consists of only six jurors rather than twelve the odds of any particular minority, gender representation, ethnic identity or social class are probably reduced. I only offer this by way of suggesting that the make up of the jury was artificially low to reflect a diversity of viewpoints in the community. The makeup, in itself however, may not have had anything to do with the verdict. Do not forget the Sweet trials of Detroit in 1924 - 25, with an all white jury acquitting of a murder charge. Certainly lawyers in metropolitan areas have found all white juries acquitting black defendants of criminal charges, certainly I have. >From the evidence referenced in the daily press articles I would suggest that >it was going to be difficult to get a guilty verdict - if evidence was the >controlling factor. We know that George Zimmerman got out of his car with the presumption that a black man was "suspicious." The very act of getting out of his car with that assumption and then accosting Trevon Martin, was in and of itself, a racial assault. The subsequent death of Trevon Martin was a racist action. It is not necessary to examine the minutia of thetrial to come to this conclusion. The trial is irrelevant to it. The technical guilt or innocence of Zimmerman is irrelevant. The act was a racist act, Martin's death a result of racism - regardless of any "Stand Your Ground" rule, regardless of self-defense - which it could have been. At issue here is the attitude of contributors to this list. We are given the inference that a black jury would have reached a different verdict on the same evidence. I don't see any other way to interpret the comments about an all white woman jury. Or that a black jury would have been different. Do the contributors believe that a defendant must be tried only before a jury of members of his own race - white, African American, Asian American, Native American juries for white, African American, Asian American, Native American defendants? Should we continue with a multi-racial society but segregate all jury trials by racial category? Must a direct racial correlation to venue racial make-up be mandated for every jury. Must every jury have a quota system? The left is stepping into dangerous waters if it approaches this discussion. How are we to deal with a social phenomenon, racism, in a juridical context? One of the ways is through the Voir Dire process, but I don't want to get into a whole discussion of the Newton case or Anne Ginger's "Minimizing Racism in Jury Trials." Did the defense attorneys in the Zimmerman case exclude any black person from the jury with a eremptory challenge for a challenge for cause? The Supreme Court has held that an attorney must show an articulablete basis for a challenge of a minority juror if there is a pattern of this in the jury selection. What happened in the voir dire in this case? In other words, what basis is there for the statements made in the postings to this list? "Racist jury," "white supremacy," "acquitting one of their own." These statements would seem to me to be something of knee jerk reactions. We do not need them to be opposed to this killing. We do not need them to demonstrate again in the streets that such a killing can happen. We combat every symptom of racism we encounter and we renew our protests and efforts in the face of this verdict. It is not the jury system that is on trial here. It is the society itself. As socialists we seek to clarify the social basis of movements, the social causes of actions and the political consequences of positions. Is any one of these ends served or furthered by announcing that the verdict was the consequence of a racist jury? Especially when the jury may not have been given the facts or the legal tools in the way of definitions that would enable it to reach a different verdict? Anger without analysis or emotionalism without conscious understanding is not our job. -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Kissack <gkiss...@nyc.rr.com> To: Wayne M. Collins <sha...@aol.com> Sent: Sun, Jul 14, 2013 6:45 pm Subject: Re: [Marxism] Union Square protests ====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ====================================================================== > My wife and I were down in Union Square this afternoon to pick up some cheap ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/shacht%40aol.com ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
