Tagged: jury verdict

SCOTUS Addresses Non-Impeachment Rule in Light of Juror’s Racial Bias

In a recent SCOTUS decision, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, No. 15-606, 580 U.S. ___ (2017) (Court’s PDF), the Court addressed “whether there is an exception to the no-impeachment rule, when after the jury is discharged, a juror comes forward with compelling evidence that another juror made clear and explicit statements indicating that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in his or her vote to convict.” Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court holding “that where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.”

Justice Kennedy reminds us all that racial stereotypes and animus has no place in our justice system. He writes that “our Nation [must] rise above racial classifications that are so inconsistent with our commitment to the equal dignity of all persons.”  He further writes that “[t]he duty to confront racial animus in the justice system is not the legislature’s alone,” reminds us that this Court has many times enforced Constitution’s guarantee against state-sponsored racial discrimination in jury system, and concludes that “[a] constitutional rule that racial bias in the justice system must be addressed – including, in some instances, after the verdict has been entered – is necessary to prevent a systemic loss of confidence in jury verdicts, a confidence that is central premise of the Sixth Amendment trial right.”

Prof. Gershman on Racism in Jury Verdicts

In his most recent post titled How Racism Infects Jury Verdicts, Haub Law School Professor Bennett L. Gershman looks closely at two recent SCOTUS cases – Buck v. Davis and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, both dealing with a blunt situation of racial bias in criminal trials.

In Buck v. Davis, an expert witness testified that the petitioner is more likely to be dangerous because he is Black and in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, one of the jurors allegedly stated that he thought the defendant was guilty because he was Mexican. Both cases are currently before the United States Supreme Court.

Prof. Gershman concludes by saying that

It is almost impossible today to discuss any issue in criminal justice without at the same time discussing the role that race plays at every phase of the process. … given the increasing focus on protecting defendants against wrongful convictions, it is critical that a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury not be corrupted by uniquely pernicious stereotypes promoted either by a purported “expert” witness or a bigoted juror. Both instances are so inflammatory as to destroy confidence in a jury’s verdict.

Student Perspective: The Etan Patz Case – Confession, Lack of Physical Evidence and Reasonable Doubt

POST WRITTEN BY: Alexander Zugaro (’15), Pace Law School

The story of the 6-year-old boy, Etan Patz, who had gone missing in SOHO Manhattan in 1979, is one that stretches over several decades. Now, after a ruling on November 24, 2014 by Judge Maxwell Wiley and almost a three month long trial, the story is reaching a conclusion. In 2012, after police re-opened the investigation, Pedro Hernandez confessed to law enforcement that he was responsible for the disappearance and murder of Etan Patz. He told law enforcement that he strangled Etan and disposed of his body. Mr. Hernandez was an 18-year-old man working in a neighborhood convenience store at the time of Patz’s disappearance.

However, this past fall a hearing was held regarding the admissibility of Mr. Hernandez’s confession. Hernandez’s defense attorney, Harvey Fishbein, argued that Hernandez was schizophrenic and bipolar at the time he made his confession. As such, Mr. Hernandez did not understand he could reassert his right against self-incrimination even after he waived his Miranda warnings. Yet, Judge Maxwell Wiley ruled on November 24, 2014 that the confession was admissible, stating that Hernandez waived his Miranda rights and that such waiver was done knowingly and intelligently.

To date the prosecution has not been able to find any evidence corroborating Hernandez’s confession, except a statement made by Hernandez’s brother who told police that Hernandez had confessed to him two years prior to his arrest and a statement made to members of his prayer group in the summer of 1979, none of whom came forward to testify until after Mr. Hernandez was arrested. The body of Etan Patz was never found, and prosecutors have not presented any physical evidence tying Mr. Hernandez to the boy’s disappearance.

The significance of Judge Wiley’s ruling is that the jury was able to hear Hernandez’s confession and will decide on whether they believe his confession is reliable. Defense attorney Frishbein stated that “Mr. Hernandez is extremely suggestible because of his low I.Q. and other mental handicaps. Anyone who sees these confessions will understand that when the police were finished with him, Mr. Hernandez believed he killed Etan Patz, but that doesn’t mean that he did.” On the other hand, however, the lead prosecutor stated that Mr. Hernandez’s statements contain little-known details about the crime that would be hard for someone to invent. Because Judge Wiley ruled that Hernandez’ confession is admissible, the prosecution was able to present this confession as evidence to the jury, leading to the inevitable back and forth between Mr. Fishbein and the prosecutors about the reliability and weight of the confession.

Generally, if a defendant makes a videotaped confession coupled with voluntary admission to at least one other person, such evidence would be nearly impossible for the defense attorney to overcome. However, since in this case there is no tangible evidence corroborating the confession, will the jury doubt the accuracy of Mr. Hernandez’ confession? Time will soon tell.

Since the beginning of the trial on January 30, 2015, the defense has continued to undermine the reliability of Hernandez’s confession. Not only has the defense argued that the confession was a fantasy invented under police pressure by a man with a weak and malleable mind, plagued by a personality disorder, Mr. Fishbein has presented evidence of an alternative suspect who might have been responsible of Etan Patz’ disappearance. Witnesses place Jose A. Ramos, a man convicted of child molestation in an unrelated case, near Etan Patz’s home around the time of the murder. Ramos was dating Ms. Susan Harrington, who was hired to walk Etan Patz to and from school. The defense witnesses further testified that Ramos met Etan Patz and that he had been in the Patz’s apartment. Although Etan Patz’s mother denied Ramos was ever in their apartment, by presenting this evidence, the defense further undermined Hernandez’s confession.

The confession of Mr. Hernandez has become the focal point of the entire trial. As the attorneys are delivering their closing arguments, many people following the case and trial, I’m sure, have developed their opinions. For me, it was important to realize and understand that an innocent defendant and a defendant being not guilty are two very different things. The defense attorney has to create a reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds that Hernandez has possibly not committed the alleged crime in order to succeed. Mr. Fishbein’s efforts to cast this doubt by introducing an alternative suspect theory, by undermining the reliability of the original confession, and by pointing to the lack of physical evidence have been clear. However, it is difficult to tell what the outcome of this case will be. As the jury is about to retire to deliberate, the long anticipated verdict will soon be revealed bringing this case to a close after decades of waiting.

Related Readings: