Reply #37: I wouldn't want anyone that I care about to be targeted by that prosecutor

[Sapphire Blue]

Sparing the Crips Founder: The Fight to Save Stantley "Tookie" Williams
by Matt Gonzalez Friday, Dec. 02, 2005 at 3:20 PM

(excerpt)

Amazingly, the prosecutor in Williams’ case, Robert Martin, has twice been publicly castigated by the California Supreme Court for using peremptory jury challenges in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the well-settled doctrine of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Martin’s conduct was so egregious that the second time the California Supreme Court censured him, Justice Stanley Mosk wrote in an opinion concurring with the majority: "Only a few months earlier, this court attempted to teach this same prosecutor that invidious discrimination was unacceptable when we reversed a judgment of death because of similar improper conduct on his part. He failed — or refused — to learn his lesson. The result is another reversal — and another costly burden on the administration of justice."

In Williams’ case, prosecutor Martin appears to have again engaged in the same discriminatory conduct. He struck all three prospective African-American jurors from the panel without giving any explanation. Unfortunately, Williams’ trial attorney, inexplicably, failed to object to this apparent racially motivated action. As a result, Williams was convicted and sentenced to death by an all white jury, and the courts have been reluctant to discuss whether William’s attorney’s errors rise to a finding of “ineffective counsel.” Surprisingly, the Federal Courts also concluded Williams failed to make the showing necessary to warrant a further inquiry concerning the elimination of all prospective African-American jurors from the panel. While it is true that the striking of a single black juror alone would not rise to the Batson case level, striking every black juror as in Williams’ case would certainly sound alarms -- particularly in a case where the defendant is black and where the prosecutor has a documented history of this brand of improper conduct.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787322.php

Please clarify... are you basing what you will/will not believe in Stan Tookie Williams' case based on your believing that he is/was a "thug" ("Now if he wasn't a thug, I might be swayed")? Isn't that being prejudiced?

I'm glad that we can agree on clemency (life w/o parole)