Monday, May 23, 2016

Conviction overturned in Georgia ...Judge rules racial bias in jury selection

Georgia death row inmate Timothy Tyrone Foster is seen in an undated photo provided by the Georgia Department of Corrections.
 Foster was convicted in 1987 of murdering a 79-year-old retired school teacher in her home

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a black death-row inmate, finding that state prosecutors in Georgia unlawfully excluded potential black jurors from his trial.
Timothy Tyrone Foster was convicted of molesting and killing a white 79-year-old retired schoolteacher in 1987.
But the court on Thursday overturned his conviction after ruling that the prosecution had broken the law. Foster may now face a retrial, 29 years after his death sentence.
A law introduced in 1986 made it illegal in the US to pick jurors based on the colour of their skin.
But the following year all four black members of the potential jury pool in Foster's case were struck from the pool by prosecutors, leaving an all-white jury.
Non race-related reasons were given for striking the black members from the pool, but prosecution notes released to Foster's lawyers in 2006 revealed racial motivations, the Supreme Court said. The notes show that the prosecution marked the names of black prospective jurors with a "B", highlighted them in green, and circled the word "black" on their juror questionnaires, Reuters news agency reported.
According to Foster's lawyer, Stephen Bright, one handwritten note titled "Definite Nos" listed six people, of whom five were the remaining black prospective jurors, the Associated Press reported. The sixth was a white woman who made clear she would never impose the death penalty, Mr Bright said.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the notes "plainly bely the state's claim that it exercised its strikes in a 'colour blind' manner".
The eight justices of the Court voted 7-1 in Foster's favour. The sole dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative and the only black member of the court.
Foster, who was 18 at the time of the murder, was accused of breaking into the home of White, breaking her jaw, sexually molesting her and then strangling her, before stealing items from her house. So should they have followed the letter of the law or be guided by the severity of the crime? Hard choice, but personally, I think the law has to stand under these circumstances.


  1. I think they should investigate each case on it's merit for the truth and not assume a person is guilty because the color of their skin or statue in life .
    Money talks and bull shit walks .
    Good post
    See you later . Love PIC

  2. Hooray ... hot off the presses just posted on SHs ... Cosby has to stand trial .

  3. hahahaha! I just took your SH post up to Nana who has been following your articles. I print them off and take them to her. She was excited that they nailed him on something. But like she says, it doesn't mean he won't walk out of court after the trial with a slap on the wrist.
    Later Love PIC


Through this ever open gate
None come too early
None too late
Thanks for dropping in ... the PICs