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:
Just because someone belongs to a certain group and supports causes related to that group does not mean they are incapable of being impartial.
I've been on several juries during my lifetime and was frequently amazed at the people who end up on juries vs the people who are dismissed by the lawyers. I've seen lawyers on both sides dismiss people for stating reasoned opinions for or against an issue - for example, alcoholism, while accepting people whose answers demonstrated a lack of knowledge and awareness...and even intelligence.
Just because someone has an opinion on something doesn't mean they are incapable of being impartial in deciding whether the defendents violated the law. The benchmark for choosing a juror shouldn't be the perception of bias based on their history but the integrity, or lack thereof, they give in their answers.
Why the hell are we wasting taxpayer money on a trial. They let the OCCUPY crowd get away with all kind of stuff.
Complete waste of time, what do the "protestors" think the word "selection" means?
This is a non-story.
My wife is an attorney and at the end of the day she bounces a lot of her frustrations off me. I agree with her when she says that, most people hold the misunderstanding that in order to be a judge, you need an exemplary knowledge of the legal system, a well rounded personality and many, many years involved in the legal system as a top-notch lawyer.
Wrong! This judge is a perfect example of how even a moron can acquire the position.
I think that the Prosecutor and Judge did the right thing. I will say this however. I have a gay friend that does not believe in same sex marriages.
One other point. I think these protesters were wrong to block the door's to this City building. If they were asked to move or leave and did not, then I think any charges that they have pending are justified.
Jury trials are tough. Like the Zimmerman trial. Can you find a jury of 12 that doesn't include at least one racist? And even if you could exclude racists, it would not be a balanced jury. Remember that OJ did not kill his ex wife and Ron Goldman with his swiss army knife because Ron told him to leave. The real killer was a guy who was just walking by thier house and had just quit smoking. He decided to kill a couple of people rather than to just go buy a pack of cigarettes.
I like how everyone is assuming that there are no other gay individuals on the dismissed jury. It never said that "ALL" the gay candidates were dismissed. The article only says that "ONE" candidate was removed for having participated in a Gay Rights protest.
Also consider this, what if that juror was straight, but participated in the same protest. I but even money that they would have still removed said juror.
People who think it was because the juror was gay are simply being bias due to having such a strong desire to find any reason to promote the gay rights movement.
Which by the way, I support. I would be considered unbiased, because I simple don't care that much...
You know, I wonder if people would be in as much of an uproar if a person that had participated in Anti-Gay Rights protest that was christian had been removed. I bet not. I also guarantee a juror like that would be removed under question of bias.
Now consider this, how is it different than what happened in this case? wouldn't it be persecution of religion if a christian was removed? Even if they had participated in Anti-Gay Rights protests by the general logic shown by this judge and a majority of the people responding here?
NOT Born Gay: Homosexuality Caused by Emotional Trauma:
Author and AIDS victim Jerry Arterburn said: "I was involved in the homosexual world as a blatant attempt to obtain the affection from other men that I did not receive from my own father."
Due to his sensitive nature, he was more deeply affected than most boys when his own father rejected him early in life. Without a loving father figure, he yearned for affection from other boys by the age of six. His yearning became sexualized at puberty. He said being abused or severely neglected in childhood was "too common a thread to ignore" in the gay community and his female mannerisms were due to his mother, his only role model. He was NOT born gay.
Gay Suicides INCREASE in Gay-Friendly Nations: Being supportive of the basic civil rights of gays and lesbians does not require a belief in the false notion that people are born gay. They are not. Homosexuality is caused by emotional trauma - from childhood neglect, abuse, or any number of traumatic causes.
If we love someone, we want to see them healed (from the emotional trauma connected to the homosexual feelings), not see them get married.
In the Netherlands where gay marriage has been accepted for quite awhile now, has seen no decrease in gay suicide - in fact, some studies show an increase.
If you do not promote emotional healing and resolution and instead choose to ignore it for your own selfish reasons, their blood is on your hands.
Homosexuality Caused By Emotional Trauma as Early as 4 Years Old:
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 2009): "One half of the victims...often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences...The age at the time of the molestation ranged from 4 to 16 with a mean age of 10."
So, what to do? pick up your pocketbook and go home ... and that's the way it is..
Maybe by California rules, they consider it illegal, but by federal law it is not. In all cases, any party may challenge for cause any juror drawn for the trial. The court shall determine the validity of the objection urged. In other words they can select or deselect who they want. The court then decides if it is valid. The prosecutor was within his jurisdiction to object to a juror.
There arc many reasons why a person on the jury panel might not be a fair and impartial juror. He or she may be closely related to one of, the litigants; have a business relationship with one of the lawyers or have personal knowledge of the case to he tried. He or she may show Some leaning, one way or the other, regarding the type of case being tried. If a juror thinks he or she may be disqualified for reasons not brought out by the questions, he or she should rise in his or her place and tell the judge and lawyers about it.
This means it was not illegal for the prosecutor to do this, but it may be illegal for the judge if he interferes with due process.
Homosexuality NOT Fixed in All Individuals:
"Being supportive of the basic civil rights of self-identified gays and lesbians does not require a belief in the false notion that homosexuality is invariably fixed in all people. It is not. Patient self-determination, the cornerstone of all mental health professionals, must rise above the political debate."
"Like most psychiatrists I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue - some people can and do change."
(Archives of Sexual Behavior 2003: 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation)
Lesbians Say 'Born Gay' Concept is UNSCIENTIFIC:
Lesbian activist Camille Paglia said: "Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous..."
Lesbian activist and biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, referring to the "born gay" argument, said: "It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment actually having some sway in court. For me, it's a very shaky place. It's bad science and bad politics."
True: could you please stop with the prewritten, cut-and-paste jobs that are not relevant to the issue at hand here? Absolutely nobody in the world is going to change his or her mind about anything based on the kind of material you're providing and the carpet-bombing way you're providing it.
NOT Born Gay: Homosexuality Caused by Emotional Trauma:
"Like many who struggle with same-sex attractions, the early years of my life were filled with pain and confusion. When I was 8 years old my parents divorced. This single event was the turning point. For the next 12 years my life would be marked by rejection, estrangement, isolation, abuse, insecurity, and fear....What I did not realize for the first half of my life was that my struggle with same-sex attraction WAS BORN OUT OF A LEGITIMATE HUNGER FOR LOVE, AFFIRMATION, IDENTITY, AND SECURITY."
D. Berryessa, ex-gay.
Mike in pcb, just wondering what a jury of his/her piers would look like. Any resemblance to a jury of his/her peers?
"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.”
actually it sounds as if the people picking the jurors are looking for peeps who will convict without a thought
sadsadsad
people who do these things will have it come back in their faces one day
If being liberal means every time someone with a different opinion disagrees with me means I have to call them by racist or bigot I'll pass.
If being liberal means someone doesn't agree with being gay, but is okay that your gay means I have to call them a phobe I'll pass.
If being liberal means someone doesn't agree with abortion, but respects my point of view means I'll have to call them a right wing Bible thumping nut job I'll pass.
If being liberal means inclusion only applies to my point of view I think I'll pass.
I think I'll just go along being the best person I can be respecting other point of views while expecting others to respect my point of view.
Joan Weber demonstrated her bias in support of homosexualism.
Many of you are forgetting that what comes before a representative jury is a fair trial and an impartial judgement. It could not just simply be a fair or impartial trial for this case to include ONE member of the jury that has a previous and known partial feeling to the subject at hand. You cannot believe a person could put aside personal feelings and judgments to create a constructive subject when deliberating with the rest of the jury. If there is any doubt, than the jury member must be removed. Just like if there is any doubt during the case, the defendant is ruled in favor of.
Put it like this and turn the subject around and move the situation to an extreme example. If you had a known white supremacist on trial for any number of atrocities, would you think it to be a problem if there were members of the jury that were known to be of the same sick lifestyle of the defendant? They would simply be defending the defendant in the jury room, instead of looking at the facts and determining what the judgement should be fairly. Even if that may not be the truth, as some people can put aside personal issues and make decisions, would it not be a more intelligent to err on the side of caution and remove the potential jury members in the selection phase? Furthermore, there would be the threat of a mistrial upon that information becoming open, and cost tax-payers even MORE money to try cases like this.
OK enough common sense talk. If that did not get through to some of you people then....... :(
New example: Would you protest if a man was on tiral for rape and a sex offender was excused from the jury by the prosecutor?
If by Liberal they mean someone who looks ahead, and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions.
Someone who cares about the welfare of the people, their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and civil liberties.
Someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions, that grip policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a Liberal, then I'm proud to say I'm a LIBERAL! JFK~~
Juror Questionnaires are the problem; they allowing prejudice to creep into the criminal process.
In this case the prosecutor had a chance to present a partial jury by excluding a minority, wanting to win more than loving his countries freedoms, he took the less noble course as Judge Weber ruled.
Either Fight for your freedoms or be enslaved!
What does Orange County California and San Diego have in common? Right wing Republicans attempting to control whatever they can.
If being liberal means every time someone with a different opinion disagrees with me means I have to call them by racist or bigot I'll pass.
If being liberal means someone doesn't agree with being gay, but is okay that your gay means I have to call them a phobe I'll pass.
If being liberal means someone doesn't agree with abortion, but respects my point of view means I'll have to call them a right wing Bible thumping nut job I'll pass.
If being liberal means inclusion only applies to my point of view I think I'll pass.
I think I'll just go along being the best person I can be respecting other point of views while expecting others to respect my point of view.
Mick-
I can agree with you if conservative can be and is substituted for liberal in your post.