A blatant denial of free speech
"A federal judge in New York reportedly sentenced a Brooklyn woman to indefinite jury duty after she made racist remarks toward minorities.
"This is an outrage, and so are you!" Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis told the woman as he held up her juror questionnaire, the New York Daily News reports.
The unidentified juror -- an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry -- was being screened for jury duty on Tuesday in the death penalty trial of Bonanno crime boss Vincent "Vinny Gorgeous" Basciano.
Asked to name three people she least admired, the woman wrote on her questionnaire: "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians."
When Garaufis asked why she answered the question that way, the woman replied, "You always hear about them in the news doing something."
Garaufis then instructed the court that the woman would be seeing a lot of Brooklyn Federal Court in coming days. "She's coming back [today], Thursday and Friday -- and until the future, when I am ready to dismiss her," he said.
Source
It's the judge who should be charged. He is certainly misusing the processes of the court.
18 comments:
This Judge has stepped all over this womens rights and she shoud sue, sue, sue. Where is the ACLU on this. O she must be white so the ACLU wouldent be interested in this persons rights. Stormewaters
"she must be white"
No, she is Asian. Read the article unless you do not want facts to get in the way.
Asian = White in the minds of multiculturalists. Unless the Asian is up against a Caucasian. Appeal the decision.
"Asian = White in the minds of multiculturalists. "
Your opinion, not fact. Try again.
The woman played this trick, and several others, in a deliberate effort to get out of jury duty. The judge made sure it didn't work, at least for a time, rather than reward her dodging, which in turn would have encouraged others to try the same tricks.
Was she racist? I doubt it, and anyway free speech trumps that, but none of that was really the point anyway. In the real game within the game, this was just her own attempted mini-scam of the system by way of avoiding her duty.
This judge fails...
Do you really want someone of this caliber on a jury?
No, the judge does not fail; in fact, I rather like the guy.
She tried to dodge jury duty and he made her sit there for a few days in order to discourage the tactic.
She didn't just ask for a deferment because of circumstances. No, she had no such reason and so she instead pretended to be a vile, non-acceptable juror and did so in such a blatant and obvious manner that she expected the judge to reward her by sending her home right away. There's even an episode of the Simpsons, actually, where Homer suggests this tactic. Life imitates art.
But the judge didn't cooperate, didn't fall for it for a moment, and good for him.
I repeat: this woman was no racist. She was instead a pretender who wanted outta her duty as a juror. If she wants to lie under oath, then the judge making her sit there a few days is fine by me.
He didn't make her sit there because her expressed views, faked or not, were politically incorrect; he made her sit there so as not to reward her for scamming the system and lying to the court.
He didn't make her sit there because her expressed views, faked or not, were politically incorrect; he made her sit there so as not to reward her for scamming the system and lying to the court.
The article says it is unclear whether the woman lied or those were her actual beliefs.
Even so, the judge has overstepped his limits here. The jury questionnaire is filed under oath. If he felt she lied, then the remedy is to prosecute her for perjury. Instead, the judge denied her a trial and simply pronounced a sentence.
There is also the issue of why "name three people you least admire" is relevant on a jury questionnaire.
She may have very well been scamming the system. That doesn't mean the questionnaire was valid within the law and certainly the judge's actions are not within the law as well.
Heres another liberal leftists activist judge that needs imediate removal from the bench their a travisty to justice
In addition to her honesty on the questionaire she shoulda burned the Qur'an.
@Stinky: How you know she was trying to scam the system? Of course, she may have been trying to do just that. In fact, I'm sure many people *do* try to scam the system. Just curious how you knew she was one of them.
@dman,
How do I know for sure? I don't, but that's kinda like saying I don't know for sure that O.J. killed his wife, either.
I suspect the judge felt the same way with this woman, who deliberately made comments that were just too obviously intended only to inflame, and that rather than choose an expensive and difficult prosecution he made his point on the spot.
The judge's history is certainly not one I agree with; he is indeed a very p.c. jurist who decides, on racial issues at least, solely based on his political views, sigh.
But in this case I think there was a different subtext.
Regardless of this woman's true intensions, her presence on a jury could lead to a challange of an unfavorable verdict.
I suspect the judge felt the same way with this woman, who deliberately made comments that were just too obviously intended only to inflame, and that rather than choose an expensive and difficult prosecution he made his point on the spot.
The problem is that you are not making a supposition on one thing - you are making suppositions on two things. You think the woman is not racist (even though the article says it is unclear) and then you think the judge did this because he felt she was scamming the system.
At least the OJ verdict in the civil trial used evidence.
At least the OJ verdict in the civil trial used evidence.
Ha Ha! Stop it! Oh, my sides, my sides!
Ha Ha! Stop it! Oh, my sides, my sides!
Ah yes. A less than intelligent response.
No wonder you are laughing.
it is quiet interesting to see liberals always defending judges when they are wrong. Predictable and typical.
I guess I am an atypical liberal. That judge sucks the big one.
Post a Comment