Supreme Court will take up case about juror's racial bias

Ethics

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether jurors' claims of racially charged comments by another juror can overcome the need for secrecy in jury deliberations.

The justices will hear an appeal from a Hispanic man in Colorado who says he did not have a fair trial because a juror made offensive comments about Mexicans.

The remarks came to light when two other jurors told the defendant's lawyer about them. Courts rarely allow jurors to reveal what went on during their deliberations.

But defendant Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez argues that the comments were so bad they deprived him of his constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.

The high court will hear the case in the fall. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Congress of American Indians are among the groups backing Pena Rodriguez. They provided the justices with examples of other trials in which jurors uttered slurs or made derogatory remarks about Native American, African-American and Hispanic defendants.

Colorado tried to dissuade the court from taking up the case by arguing there was overwhelming evidence against Pena Rodriguez and that no juror suggested that the offensive comments affected or persuaded anyone else.

After a jury convicted Pena Rodriguez of unlawful sexual contact and harassment involving teenage sisters at a Denver-area horse race track, two jurors provided his lawyer with sworn statements claiming that a third juror made derogatory remarks about Mexican men before voting guilty.

"I think he did it because he's Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want," is one of several racially tinged statements attributed to the juror identified in court records by the initials H.C. In another comment, the juror is said to have cast doubt on an alibi provided by a Hispanic witness for Pena Rodriguez because the witness was "an illegal." The witness testified that he was in the country legally.

But three separate courts in Colorado said those statements could not be used to upend Pena Rodriguez's conviction because of a long-standing rule that prohibits jurors from testifying about what happens during deliberations. The rule, found in both federal and state law, is intended to promote the finality of verdicts and to shield jurors from outside influences.

Related listings

  • Supreme Court rejects states' challenge to Colorado pot law

    Supreme Court rejects states' challenge to Colorado pot law

    Ethics 03/17/2016

    The Supreme Court has rejected an effort by Nebraska and Oklahoma to have Colorado's pot legalization declared unconstitutional.   The justices are not commenting Monday in dismissing the lawsuit the states filed directly at the Supreme Court ag...

  • Georgia court: Immigrants can't sue state agency on tuition

    Georgia court: Immigrants can't sue state agency on tuition

    Ethics 02/01/2016

    Georgia's highest court on Monday ruled against a group of young people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children and wanted access to in-state tuition at the state's colleges and universities. However, the court decision hinged not on their...

  • Rome court acquits ex-Vatican accountant of corruption

    Rome court acquits ex-Vatican accountant of corruption

    Ethics 01/15/2016

    A lawyer for an Italian monsignor who was fired from his Vatican accountant's job says a Rome court has acquitted his client of corruption. Prosecutors alleged Monsignor Nunzio Scarano was involved in a purported plot to use a private plane to try to...

Chicago Business Fraud Attorney

Business Fraud can take many forms. In the broadest terms, a fraud occurs when someone intentionally deceives others for personal gain. Many times business fraud is harmful and recovery is necessary. Losing your personal or business’s assets can devastate your entire life. Contact Roth Law Groupto receive help on restoring your business to normalcy before you were victimized with fraud. Business fraud cases can involve multiple people and complicated schemes aimed at deceiving the public, auditors, investigators, or others. Whether you are dealing with corporate fraud or commercial fraud, we can step in and fight back to receive compensation that you deserve.

At Roth Law Group we are devoted to prosecuting and defending the legal rights of individuals and small businesses, as either plaintiff or defendant. Proving fraud can be extremely difficult. To have a successful business fraud case, one must prove that the defendant purposefully set out to defraud the victim. Fraud cases are being investigated more aggressively than ever. With increasing federal regulation and scrutiny of corporate practises, many individuals and businesses find themselves the subject of business fraud investigations.

Business News

Clayton, MO Federal Criminal Defense Attorney The Law Offices of John M. Lynch, LLC, provides strong representation for clients with federal criminal defense. >> read