E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jeff Herrera/NBC San Diego
A group of protesters attempted to enter the clerk's office in San Diego, August 19, 2010, but they were told they would only be allowed inside if they had an appointment.
A judge in San Diego has dismissed an entire jury panel in a case involving same-sex marriage activists, saying the prosecutors’ rejection of a possible juror because of his sexual orientation violated the defendants’ rights to a representative jury, local media reports say.
Superior Court Judge Joan Weber issued the ruling Tuesday after lawyers for the group of activists, known as the “Equality 9,” challenged the rejection of the juror, who was gay and had protested in support of gay rights in the past, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.
Defense attorneys said the juror’s dismissal violated their clients’ rights to a fair trial. But prosecutors said answers given on a questionnaire by the potential juror, including the past protest, were the reasons why he was let go, according to the Tribune. Assistant City Attorney Andrew Jones said the case was focused on the actions of the activists.
“That's all that this is about,” Jones said. “It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.”
The judge said the prosecutors’ actions were “shocking” and she was “heartbroken,” according to the Tribune and NBCSanDiego.com.
Weber's decision to dismiss an entire jury panel was "fairly rare" and "doesn't happen every day," Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, told msnbc.com.
He thought the prosecutors did not overstep their bounds.
"People get removed from juries all the time for all kinds of reasons," he said. "There was nothing shocking about them removing somebody who they believed could not be fair and impartial.”
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) President Herndon Graddick disagreed.
"Attempting to exclude a group of people from participating in the legal process is un-American," he said, adding that many states -- though not California -- lack protections for gay jurors.
David Loy, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, said “the judge clearly did the right thing.”
“Jurors should not be excluded from service because of their sexual orientation any more so than they can be excluded because of race or gender,” he told msnbc.com.
The group of defendants -- originally nine, but now six -- were charged with refusing to disperse and interfering with the business of a public agency for holding a long, sit-down protest in a hallway outside the county clerk's office on August 19, 2010, according to NBCSanDiego.com.
They had been protesting in support of a couple who had made an appointment to marry after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Prop. 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, and said the marriages could begin Aug. 18 of that year.
However, the county clerk would not certify same-sex marriages because Walker’s ruling was set aside pending appellate review.
Of the nine protesters, three accepted a deal from the city attorney’s office to plead no contest to an infraction, according to the Tribune. The lawyers will be in court early Wednesday to talk about the next steps in the case of the remaining six.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- George Zimmerman's old Myspace page includes slurs against Mexicans
- Chicago pays $45 million in 3 years to settle complaints against cops
- Maryland court finds pit bulls are 'inherently dangerous'
- Video: Obama describes raid that killed bin Laden
- NJ mom arrested after allegedly taking daughter, 5, tanning
Leave a Comment:
While refusing a juror for being gay is not sufficient cause, the fact that the juror was a protestor and activist is indication of bias that will affect his ability to judge this case fairly. He/she should be out.
This judge needs to be in another line of work.
How easy it is to judge rightly after one sees what evil comes from judging wrongly!
~Elizabeth Gaskell
Somebody explain how a gay rights activist is going to be subjective in a case about same-sex marriage one of the most controversial topics in the nation currently? Why even put the case to trial? If anybody actually believes he can be objective, you're out of your minds and live in Never-Never Land.Go ahead make any arguement you but that doesn't change reality. Weak minded people might buy it though. This reminds of that case of that gay judge hearing the California's marriage law. He doesn't recuse himself, shoots down the law, and immediately goes out and gets married his doctor boyfriend of ten years. And plus, goes out the circuit and promotes the fight for it. Yea, he was subjective too.
OkNowWhats,
Well, this case isn't about gay marriage. The case is about whether or not a handful of protestors misbehaved at a sit-in. All the protestors are gay. The judge, very rightly, decided that dismissing a prospective juror because they feel strongly about marriage equality, an extraneous issue to this case, would deny the defendants a trial by a jury of their PEERS.
And that gay judge that shot down Prop 8 did not go out and get married right after. He's still not married to his boyfriend. Stop making sh!t up.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. Still my point remains the same. The judge was gay and invovled in a 10 year relationship with another man. Marriage or no marriage, that seems like a pretty tight couple with feelings, thoughts, fears, and attitudes shared with each other in bed. I just don't see how that would not be, at the very least a small factor, in influencing his decision. After all, the initial judge for the Zimmerman case recused herself just because her husband was approached by Zimmerman for representation. A small matter for open discussion but siginificant enough to remove herself from the case. That's what a person of integrity does and that's my point. Even the perception of impropriety, either true or untrue does not matter, it is unacceptable.
To my other point, let's put it this way. A cop made a comment earlier that he didn't like being dismissed all the time because he felt he is more than capable in rendering a subjective decision even though he inforces the law everyday. So, let me ask you this question. Let's say you are involved in a trial where some cops beat the crap of your best friend. (Similar to the King incident) The cops are on trial for excessive use of force and maybe even assualt. Later you find out a police officer, from another city, is on the jury. (Hey, be judged by your peers! Really, who better to make a proper and informed decision when you think about it.) What would you think then??? What ever arguement you give to not have that cop on the jury is the same arguement for any other possible scenario including the one in this article.
If you dont like being treated as a freakshow, QUIT BEING ONE!
no matter if you like it or not both sides can eliminate jurors for whatever reason they want. I don't see the outrage since there are droves of minorities that face jury's that are nothing like them all the time. I'd be interested in how many times the judge has allowed anything like that.
This "judge" has their politically correct head so far up his s that he should be able to check what he had for breakfast! The basic assumption of jury trials any more is that you will have a jury of educable idiots - no opinion, no knowledge, no experience in whatever area is being tried. This juror obviously could not be an unbiased person, automatically disqualified!
Maybe the judge is a little biased? Walking on both sides of the streeet?
Lets look at the description of the events with the bias rules removed. "A juror was removed for cause because it was discovered that he was part of a group that could be considered in sympathy with the defendants in the case. To try to make sure the trial was fair, the juror was removed." With the specifics removed, this is a non-story. I am disappointed in the judge acting improperly.
Man, I would love to get thrown off a jury!
I have been. It was because I knew one of the investigating officers and might therefore have a positive or negative bias regarding their testimony. Certainly a far more tenuous concern than having a committed activist regarding an issue in the trial on the jury.
But Rick,
What you are suggesting would exclude every gay person from serving on any jury anywhere. While it might seem like a reasonable move initially, it becomes clear that such a policy reveals an unreasonable prejudice in and of itself.
How the hell can someone proclaim discrimination by being excused as a juror?? Jury duty is not protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Just another person claiming the world hates him for what he is.
The San Diego DA's office is one of the most unethical and corrupt I've ever seen. Darrell Issa should drag their butts before a committee and grill the bejesus out of them.
I've often wondered why we permit lawyers/judges to ask about a prospective juror's views on capital punishment when they are part of a jury pool for a capital crime. Defendants are guaranteed a fair and impartial jury and NOT a jury pre-screened all to agree on a political question upon which there is widespread disagreement. I wonder if any studies have been done to see whether pro-death penalty jurors are more likely to convict or have some other statistically significant difference from anti-death penalty jurors.
When a juror acknowledges that they are not prepared to follow the laws of the state, they are unfit for service. If the law of the state calls for capital punishment under certain circumstances and the juror states that they cannot follow the law even where those circumstances may exist, they have disqualified themselves. If you can't follow that, retake Logic 101 and, this time, don't sleep through it.
CincinnatiRick: stop with the personal attacks. You have utterly no idea whether I slept through classes or not.
My point is that pre-screening potential jurors for their opinions on matters of political controversy could potentially bias jurors in ways totally unrelated to the issue being addressed. Just for instance, is it posssible that a jury composed of all pro-capital punishment jurors might be more likely to convict even if they don't recommend the death penalty ultimately?
This case is bogus on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. The judge advocating from the bench and injecting emotion is pathetic at best. Should be censured.
The juror was rejected for cause. That means that no reason need be given.
The judge overstepped her authority, and is obviously partial to the defendents.
All of this is a load of crap. since when did any one have rights again? in yakima wa, you dont even have a right to a speedy trial let alone the right to a jury of you peirs.
Better not live in Yakima then
Isn't the purpose of interviewing jurors to remove those that would tend to pre-determine the outcome?
The media is on a kick to extend the proper action of not discriminating to trying to convince everyone that homosexuality should actually be celebated for some reason.
This socially-correct propoganda is getting silly.
amazed, you're getting silly. And sillier and sillier.
the rights of this nation are falling apart. it should not matter what you sexuality, color, or intrests are. this country is just becoming more corrupt every year.
does anyone really give a rats as# about a freakin queer???
The intent is to assemble a jury of one's peers, not one's partisans or protagonists. What would be "shocking" would be the failure of any attorney, prosecutor or defense, to remove for cause any potential juror with obvious biases pertinent to the case to be tried.
This judge has behaved in a most unprofessional manner and I would say, absent some extenuating circumstance (not evident in this report), should be removed from the bench.
Cincinnatti,,
"This judge has behaved in a most unprofessional manner..."
Yeah well, you're an idiot. And I am grateful that your opinion carries no weight in these matters.
Hey Laguna Greg, Cincinnatti is correct, if it were your trial would you want a biased judge sitting on the bench?? NOT ME and I doubt you would either or else you are just plain DUMB..I want an unbiased judge....PERIOD, this judge is a wack job and not unbiased. Perhaps the Judicial Counsel should take a better look at her.
I woud assume the activists would have no problem if a bible thumper was dismissed by the defense because of potential bias. Preemptive challenges are standard practice and each side can choose to dismiss prospective jurors as they choose. Just more nonsense for the left where up is down and down is up.
not really i just want justice.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
~Matthew chapter 7, verse 1
The prosecutor should be charged with prosecutorial misconduct and discrimination, and then fired.
Potentially biased jurors are rejected all the time. What's the BIG F****** DEAL? Why does it mean prejudice?
I was once rejected as a juror on a workmans' comp suit because I had previously been injured at work. The judge who threw out this jury demonstrated her bias.
The right move by the judge.
I don't think this attorney is too bright. He somehow overlooked the idea that one of the jurors in a heterosexual marriage might hold his/her marriage against his client. God, these guys are brain dead. You really have to wonder what school educated him, and then keep your kids in other schools. Weird.