Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Woman given indefinite jury duty

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:44 PM
Original message
Woman given indefinite jury duty
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/06/2011-04-...

Judge gives 'Juror No. 799' indefinite jury duty after she makes racist remarks on questionnaire

An incensed federal judge sentenced a racist Brooklyn woman to indefinite jury duty on Tuesday after she trashed the NYPD and minorities.

"This is an outrage, and so are you!" Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis told the woman, holding up her bile-filled juror questionnaire.

Juror No. 799, an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry, was up for jury duty in the death penalty trial of Bonanno crime boss Vincent (Vinny Gorgeous) Basciano.

It didn't take long for her to start looking worse than the defendant.

Asked to name three people she least admired, she wrote on her questionnaire: "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians."

When the judge asked why she answered the question that way, she replied, "You always hear about them in the news doing something."

She also declared that cops are all lazy, claiming that they sound their sirens to bypass traffic jams.

Garaufis flipped forward several pages in her questionnaire.

He landed on the page where she had said she had a relative who was a member of the Chinese Ghost Shadows gang in the 1980s, convicted of murder and still in prison.

"Why didn't you put 'Asians' down also?" the judge asked sarcastically, referring to her list of least-liked people.

"Maybe I should have," she said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Taryn Merkl requested that the woman be disqualified from the Vinny Gorgeous case because of her "inappropriate" comments. The motion was granted.

It is not unheard of for people to try to get out of jury service by making ridiculous statements concerning their views.

It was unclear Tuesday whether that was this woman's motive.

And if it was, it didn't work.

Indeed, the woman was going to be seeing a lot of Brooklyn Federal Court.

"She's coming back , Thursday and Friday - and until the future, when I am ready to dismiss her," Garaufis said.



I enjoyed this. Good idea by the judge for someone probably trying to avoid jury duty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NICO9000 Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Interesting
They'd usually bounce you out of the courtroom immediately for saying this type of stuff. I'll bet she was just trying to get out of jury duty in the most outrageous way possible.

I have a great story on how my best friend got dismissed from jury duty. He was called here in Van Nuys (San Fernando Valley) a couple of months after the L.A. riots. When he was going through the orientation, he dared to ask the following question: "I'm looking around this room and I don't see hardly any blacks or Hispanics. How is anyone supposed to get a fair trial this way?" He was then summoned to the person leading the orientation and was told his service would no longer be needed. My pal wasn't even trying to get out of it. He's one of those painfully honest people with a great sense of fairness who's not afraid to ask a difficult question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. On the other hand, should she be on ANY jury?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. They don't actually have to put her on a jury ... just make her show up every day
sit waiting for a panel to be called, sit through voir dire, come back again ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. When the most odius of us are treated unfairly is when we should be the most vigilant.
This woman has every right to believe those ignorant things and singling her out for what definitely appears (at least) to be punishment should cause us all to consider that some of our most cherished beliefs were once likely to receive this kind of punishment- or worse, in a similar situation.

Tolerance of homosexuality, people of different religions, mixed-race marriages- these are all things which even in the recent (relatively) past could have caused a similar reaction from a judge in this given circumstance.

And so she should be afforded the Freedom to believe whatever she wants, insofar as the questions ask what those beliefs are.

When we permit attacks on odious speech or beliefs, it is rarely considered that we may set a dangerous precedent which could one day be used against us given our truths.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is thought crime. She is being punished for her opinions.
I hope the judge looses his position. This is really disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. +1000 K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A Simple Game Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. So true, but
even worse, she could be being punished for telling the truth.

Would the judge prefer that she lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnakeEyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. going to have to agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
7. Disgraceful on the part of the judge
they want you to give honest opinions and then the person gets punished for it, that is ... WRONG!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wabbajack_ Donating Member (669 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. Jury duty violates the 13th amendment
any way you slice it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. this judge should be removed
he is using jury duty to force an american citizen to change her beliefs by coersion
he is scum and should be disbarred for abuse of power
he is using the bench to ruin her life because he doesnt like her thinking
fucking nazi thought cop shouldnt be allowed into a courtroom ever again
were he a (r),or she more politically appealing, DU would want his head
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
12. An easier and more plausible way to get out of jury
duty would have been for her to state that she's against the death penalty. What she did was stupid and oh, so transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC