II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE THE LOWER TRIBUNAL ALLOWED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES BASED ON RACIAL AND GENDER GROUNDS.
The constitutional rights of Mr. Blake, due process and equal protection under the law, were violated when the trial Judge erred in permitting the State Attorney to raise peremptory challenges based on racial and gender grounds and failed to make the Neil inquiry. The constitution of the United States under U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, establishes that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
…show more content…
Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 631-32 (1972).
In order for Mr. Blake to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the selection of the jury, Mr. Blake can base this “solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor 's exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant 's trial.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 96.
In Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) this Court used the test previously established in State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984) which furthers the right to a fair and impartial trial. Nevertheless, since them, because trial courts had difficulty applying the Neil test, the Supreme Court of Florida introduced variations to step one through three of the test, and the current version of the test is as follows:
"A party objecting to the other side 's use of a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must: a) make a timely objection on that basis, b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike. If these initial requirements are met (step 1), the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
In the case of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company the Supreme Court of the United States found the Duke Power Company liable for violating the civil rights of thirteen African American employees of Duke Power Company. This was a result of the Duke Power Company intradepartmental transfer policy requirements of a high school education and achieving a minimum scores on two aptitude tests. The intrade direct violation because the power company could not link the intradepartmental transfer policy to benefit or predict the how the employee will lead and serve Duke Power Company. Disparate treatment is the matter of proof. The plaintiff alleging direct, intentional discrimination must first be able to establish a prima facie case and second, he or she is able to establish that the employer was acting on the basis of a discriminatory motive (Caruth).The class action suit, on the behalf of the thirteen African American employees, resulted in a unanimous ruling in favor of Griggs, Duke Power Company.
The rights of Dwight Dexter in the Fifth Amendment were violated. The amendment prevents the government from prosecuting people unfairly. Accused cannot be jailed or have their property taken without due process
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states that the State shall not deprive any person equal protection of the laws. When equal protection is guaranteed, the outcome must be fair; in other words, substantive justice must be present. Based on this interpretation, McCleskey v. Kemp should be overturned because McCleskey’s death was a racially biased and unfair outcome that was not constitutionally protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Blackmun wrote in his dissenting opinion that in order for McCleskey to prove his innocence and the presence of a racially discriminatory criminal sentencing procedure, he had to meet a three-factor standard. First, he had to prove he was a member of a group that has historically suffered differential treatment. Second, McCleskey had to establish the extent of this treatment. Last, he had to prove that the process by which the death penalty was chosen was open to racial bias. McCleskey met all three prongs of this standard, and even though the Court’s decision denied his claim that he was not guaranteed equal protection, there is enough evidence to prove the selection process was not racially neutral and that a violation of the 14th Amendment was present. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy’s idea of “evolving standards of decency” in Roper v. Simmons (2005) demonstrates that the growing national consensus is against the death penalty and therefore in favor of equal protection for all persons.
1. Were Mr. Goebel and other African-American applicants victims of racial discrimination because of the hiring policies of the defendant? Explain your position and cite all relevant case law. If you cannot take a definitive position, explain what specific information you require to be able to take a
Sometimes in life people are not given their rights, the rights that are supposed to be given fairly to them under all circumstances. Although the rights of the people are extremely important in some cases, people tend to change them. The Ford v. Wainwright case is a great example of this it shows even the government can sometimes break rules just to get their point across. This case shows many different ways of how things can be broken down into something it is not, this case shows the importance of how things really get handled behind closed doors of the government. “Ford’s” case was not properly handled because the court system decided to go against the eighth amendment, which made this case unfair.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
All throughout history civil liberties have been established, fought for, and abused. During the first quarter of the twentieth century, the civil liberties in the United States of America were tested. There were many events where the freedoms that our founding fathers had fought for Passive Voice (consider revising). Prejudice, fear, and racism all played a role during these events, during many of which they decided the outcome. Two events that demonstrate when the civil liberties in America were tested were during the trial of Sacco and Vanzettii and Schenek v. United States.
In the 1930’s a plethora of prejudiced persons are present amidst the prominent Scottsboro trials, a seven-year-long case consisting of false rape allegations made against nine black boys from Scottsboro. When citizens fail to acknowledge their own preconceived ideas and look past the prejudice present in society, justice cannot be served. In the Scottsboro case, the court of Alabama disregards the societal issues surrounding racial discrimination and endorses the guilty verdict and conviction of the nine African American boys. Failing to look past their own personal biases, the jury ignores the unquestionable evidence that would support the boys’ case. Instead, the jury focuses on their predilection
The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the case Washington vs. Texas, where Jackie Washington was tried for murder. A state court ruled that Washington could not have an accomplice in the crime testify in his defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s refusal to allow the defendant a capable witness violated the 6th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court overruled the court’s c...
The first inception of individual rights began with the founding fathers of the United States, who had a vision in which all citizens would have the right to live in this country without being discriminated based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preference (US Constitution, 2010). These are basic human rights for which many people lost their lives to protect as this country was formed. Nonetheless, today one lives in a society in which one must fight to continue to posses those rights once again. Similar to the rest of history, when there have many examples of individual rights were not protected.
Citizens of the United States are given the right to a fair trial. Over the course of the development of the American jury system, citizens are allowed to the right to meet one’s accuser, be represented by his/her peers and protection from being tried more than once on any convicted crime. The jury system has evolved from a representation of all white men to both men and women from very diverse backgrounds. This is important if one is going to be tried in his/her community of peers.
Stevenson, Bryan A. Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection. Rep. Montgomery, Alabama: Equal Justice Initiative, 2010. Print.
Issue: The Sate of Virginia did not allowed marriages between persons of different racial classification. Was the State of Virginia violating the "Equal Protection" and the "Due Process" clauses of the 14th amendment? Does the state have the power to determine or place restrictions in regards to interracial marriages and not violate the constitution?