Have you ever gone through jury selection and wondered how library employees are viewed by the lawyers? I just read a court case that explicitly discussed this. It struck me since I was selected for jury duty a few times when I was a librarian -- and rejected lots of times.
In the case (1996 IL), a murder defendant claimed that the state's lawyer improperly rejected four black potential jurors based on race. A 21-year-old black Chicago Public Library employee was excused, whereas a 24-year-old white bartender was accepted. To show that his actions had nothing to do with race, the prosecutor told the court that he excused the black woman because she "was young and an employee of the public library system," and that he believed that City employees were "more liberal, especially working in the Chicago Public Libary."
The court doubted that city employment translated into "liberal jurors," but found a legitimate distinction "between a librarian and a bartender." Additionally, the white bartender had friends in law enforcement, making him a favorable juror for the prosecution, despite his youth. This was apparently unrelated to his race.
This satisfied the court that race had nothing to do with the dismissal.
People v. Sherdale Randall, 283 Ill. App. 3d 1019 (1996)http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/1996/1stDistrict/September/HTML/1953650.txt
Excerpt below:
From the court opinion:
Ms. Mays was excused because, according to the State, she "was young and an employee of the public library system." The prosecutor reiterated his belief that City employees are "more liberal, especially working in the Chicago Public Library."
Defendant notes that the State accepted Clay Ullrick, a white juror who was 24 years old, three years her senior. Again, absent distinguishing characteristics, the State's explanation is not race-neutral if the State retains white venire members having the same or similar characteristics as the excused black venire member. Mack, 128 Ill. 2d at 239. The inquiry thus becomes whether there is a meaningful distinction between Ms. Mays and Clay Ullrick.Although we question the State's proposition that city employment somehow translates into or produces "liberal jurors," a legitimate distinction may be drawn between a librarian and a bartender, Clay Ullrick's chosen profession. Moreover, Ullrick had numerous friends in law enforcement, making him a favorable juror despite his youth and lack of, as the State puts it, "life experience." Thus, we find no error in the trial court's acceptance of the State's reasons as race-neutral.
Comments