The jury box in the Pershing County, Nevada courthouse. ( Ken Lund/Wikimedia ) Growing up, I seem to remember being taught or hearing the phrase about a right to a trial by a “jury of your peers.” I didn’t know then that nowhere in the constitution are “peers” mentioned, only the word “impartial.” I got taught black history at home, not in school, and my parents discussed the news of the day at the dining table, so I was aware that in many parts of the U.S. we couldn’t vote, and the phrase ” all-white jury ” was often attached to stark injustices taking place. I will never forget the 67 minutes it took for an all-white, all-male jury to acquit the murderers of Emmett Till. I was eight years old in September of 1955. Over half a century later, blacks, other people of color, and women are still being kept off of juries by the use of several methods, including peremptory challenges and various limitations to the jury pool. So though the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment speaks to impartiality , the question then becomes “can an all-white, all-male jury in the U.S. be impartial?” We have to examine what role discrimination plays in both jury selection, and trial outcomes. These issues have been well documented by the Equal Justice Initiative, who issued a report on Race and Jury Selection in 2010, which was widely distributed at the time, in media like the NY Times . And now Duke University has issued a study demonstrating that all-white jury pools in Florida convict black defendants at a 16 percent higher rate. Duke University Jury Study Juries formed from all-white jury pools in Florida convicted black defendants 16 percent more often than white defendants, a gap that was nearly eliminated when at least one member of the jury pool was black, according to a Duke University-led study. The researchers examined more than 700 non-capital felony criminal cases in Sarasota and Lake counties from 2000-2010 and looked at the effects of the age, race and gender of jury pools on conviction rates. The jury pool typically consisted of 27 members selected from eligible residents in the two counties. From this group, attorneys chose six seated jurors plus alternates. “I think this is the first strong and convincing evidence that the racial composition of the jury pool actually has a major effect on trial outcomes,” said senior author Patrick Bayer, chairman of Duke’s Economics Department. “Our Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury of our peers is a bedrock of the criminal justice system in the U.S., and yet, despite the importance of that right, there’s been very little systematic analysis of how the composition of juries actually affects trial outcomes, how the rules that we have in place for selecting juries impact those outcomes,” Bayer said. (Continue reading below the fold)
Original post:
Injustice and jury selection
Error 404: Candidate not found. Americans Elect announced this week that it will not field a candidate in the 2012 presidential election because no potential nominee received sufficient popular support. This is an ignominious end to an effort backed by $35 million and many high-profile political figures who sought, according to New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman, to create a viable, centrist, third-party force in American presidential politics. The reason Americans Elect was unable to generate much popular support is simple: Not many moderates believe both that President Obama is too liberal and Mitt Romney is too conservative. Further, not many moderates feel there is no place for moderates in either the Republican or Democratic parties. Given the narrative weight behind the idea that polarization in American politics is alienating a vast swath of the center, these claims may seem counterintuitive. However, a look at the raw data from two recent Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation polls provides strong supporting evidence. First, in the Daily Kos/SEIU poll conducted from April 26-29 , only 35 out of the 1,000 registered voters surveyed indicated both that President Obama is too liberal and Mitt Romney is too conservative (see questions 5 and 6, a .zip file with the raw data can be found at the bottom of the page linked). Only 18 of those 35 respondents self-identified as moderate, or about two percent of all registered voters surveyed. Second, in the Daily Kos/SEIU poll conducted from May 10-13 , only 92 of the 1,000 registered voters surveyed thought there is no place for moderates in either the Democratic or Republican parties these days (see questions 12 and 13, a .zip file with the raw data can be found at the bottom of the page linked). What’s more, only 14 of those 92 self-identified as moderates. In looking to find a viable, centrist, third-party presidential candidate for moderates who feel left out by both the Democratic and Republican parties, Americans Elect was drawing on roughly two percent of all registered voters for its base of support. As such, it is unsurprising Americans Elect was unable to generate sufficient participation to produce a nominee. While the idea that the two major parties have both abandoned the center may be popular in the opinion sections of several prominent news organizations, that idea does not have much traction with the American people. 
(Click for larger image) Follow @DailyKosComics on Twitter 
Visual source: Newseum Austerity champions and deficit fetishists in the Republican Party have pushed economic policies that hurt the vast majority of Americans. John J. Drew at the Taunton Daily Gazette gives an overview of how these policies are hurting our nation at the state level: [T]he harsh content [of Republican economic policies] stands to set the tone for the 2012 elections. It legitimizes a punitive public attitude toward those who struggle to survive in the still-difficult American economy. Why are we balancing the budget on the backs of the poor? We know that investments in programs that give a boost to poor children and working people and provide opportunities for job-training and education have a huge monetary return down the line. This budget hits hard the people who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, to put food on their tables, to send their kids to college. Meanwhile oil moguls get subsidies and the 1 percent richest Americans get tax breaks. Americans need to mobilize to prevent the budget cuts from the current House budget as well as the automatic “sequestration” cuts that will be triggered if no alternative budget agreement is reached. We need to make the choices that will protect our children and our future. We cannot let the programs vital to the health, education and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens be decimated while military spending is protected and the very wealthy continue to get tax breaks. Charles Babington at the AP looks into the latest question of the day: are Republicans deliberating trying to hurt the economy for political gain? Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth. “The last thing the country needs is a rerun of last summer’s debacle that nearly brought down our economy,” Schumer said in a statement. In an interview, Schumer added: “I hope that the speaker is not doing this because he doesn’t want to see the economy improve, because what he said will certainly rattle the markets.” Regardless of whether Schumer’s suspicions are right, there’s evidence that unceasing partisan gridlock and the prospect of big tax increases and spending cuts in January are causing some companies to postpone expansions. Even small economic slowdowns are bad news for Obama, who is seeking re-election amid high unemployment. Jim Lee at The Carroll County Times examines the disastrous Republican economic record in the context of the GOP’s state of denial: [P]oint out to Republicans that it was under their watch and it was their policies that put us in the current economic condition, and the response will more often than not be something along the lines of “that’s just the liberal pro-Obama media pushing the socialist president’s agenda.” Complete denial. Contrast that to Democrats and their response to media criticism of Obama’s “evolving” gay marriage views before he actually came out and supported it. Those stories and opinion pieces almost all fault Obama for trying to play politics and remain on the fence about a contentious issue. But do you hear waves of denials from Democrats? No. Democrats and Republicans both engage in questionable behaviors. For every example a Democrat has of Republican bad behavior, there are as many examples from Republicans of bad behavior on the Democratic side. That’s why the overall approval rating of Congress has been in the toilet for so long. People of all political stripes know that elected officials too often say and do things based entirely on how it is going to impact their career as opposed to doing what is right for the country. Democrats, however, recognize when their folks are doing this. They may not actively publicize it, but they are far less likely to point fingers at the Republicans, try to shift blame or try to ignore the wrongdoing in their own party than the Republicans when they are in a similar situation. The more Republicans push their slash-and-burn, reverse Robin Hood policies that take from the 99% and give to the 1%, the more they’ll alienate voters, no matter how much they deny it. But denial is a key part of Republican strategy. The New York Times looks at the vast Republican campaign against women and points out that on these issues too, Republicans refuse to take any responsibility for actions: Despite the persistent gender gap in opinion polls and mounting criticism of their hostility to women’s rights, Republicans are not backing off their assault on women’s equality and well-being. New laws in some states could mean a death sentence for a pregnant woman who suffers a life-threatening condition. But the attack goes well beyond abortion, into birth control, access to health care, equal pay and domestic violence. Republicans seem immune to criticism. In an angry speech last month, John Boehner, the House speaker, said claims that his party was damaging the welfare of women were “entirely created” by Democrats. Earlier, the Republican National Committee chairman, Reince Priebus, sneered that any suggestion of a G.O.P. “war on women” was as big a fiction as a “war on caterpillars.” But just last Wednesday, Mr. Boehner refuted his own argument by ramming through the House a bill that seriously weakens the Violence Against Women Act. That followed the Republican push in Virginia and elsewhere to require medically unnecessary and physically invasive sonograms before an abortion, and Senate Republicans’ persistent blocking of a measure to better address the entrenched problem of sex-based wage discrimination. Speaking of GOP attempts to limit rights, Ian Duncan and Lisa Mascaro at The Los Angeles Times analyze the GOP’s latest move: the attachment of a bill banning same-sex marraige at miliatry chapels to a defense bill: The annual National Defense Authorization Act, approved 299 to 120 on Friday, is a traditionally bipartisan effort that can prove difficult for lawmakers to oppose. The bill includes a 1.7% annual pay raise for the troops but also is loaded with politically charged extras. The bill addresses gay marriage with two provisions. One would ban performing gay marriages on any facility owned by the military. Another would protect military chaplains from punishment if they declined to marry a gay couple. The Department of Defense had opened the door to gay weddings on bases in a memo last September after Congress repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which barred gays from openly serving in the military. The policy change said chaplains were allowed to perform same-sex marriages but noted they could not be required to. It is not clear whether any ceremonies have yet been performed in military chapels. Steve Sebelius at the Las Vegas Review Journal explains why Republicans are in “chaos” in Nevada: [M[ainstream Republicans began talking openly about forming a shadow organization in Nevada to channel national party money into voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, on the theory that [the Clark County GOP] run by Paul supporters might not be trusted to enthusiastically gather votes for a far less conservative candidate. “This is not unusual in this state. We’ve had a lot of orangutans in the party over the years,” says Sig Rogich, an establishment Republican ad man. “No one’s going to contribute money to a bunch of orangutans.” Instead, Rogich said, the Romney campaign will run its own network, which could be turned over to establishment types who may have a hard time winning over conservatives, such as Gov. Brian Sandoval. Any shadow organization would be seen as an affront to the organized Paul supporters who spent years getting involved at the grass-roots level, learning the rules and showing up in force to win party positions. They followed the rules, and now they’re being told the rules don’t matter, this source said. But the mainstream Republican view is that philosophy doesn’t matter as much as victory. “There are sensible Republicans who understand at the end of the day, it’s about winning,” Rogich says. Meanwhile, on the topic of the NATO summit, The Christian Science Monitor ‘s Howard LaFranchi looks at the Afghanistan issue: When NATO nations meet in Chicago on Sunday, one question will top the agenda: What happens in Afghanistan when US combat troops leave? To be sure, some troops from NATOcountries, led by the United States, will likely stay behind after 2014 – both to train Afghans and act as a hedge against the Taliban’s return. The summit will try to iron out some of those details. But perhaps even more crucial – certainly for Afghanistan itself – is the question of who will foot the bill for Afghans to protect themselves. Afghanistan does not have remotely enough money to defend itself. Left alone, it could afford to pay about 30,000 soldiers and police officers. Currently, with international aid, it has more than 300,000 – a number that some experts say is too low. 
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) served on the Simpson-Bowles commission, is a member of the Gang of Six, and just published “ The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America.” We spoke last week in his office. This interview, which focuses on America’s debt and growth problems , is the first in a two-part series. The second interview, which focuses on health care, will be published later this week. Read full article > > 
American Airlines unions continue fighting for the best possible outcome in the bankruptcy of parent company AMR. Earlier this week, five out of seven work groups in the Transport Workers Union, the largest union at American, voted to accept contract offers: Under the deal, according to TWU, workers would make make concessions on wages and benefits, and American would retain some of the 9,000 TWU member jobs it had originally proposed to eliminate. TWU and AMR said that ratifying the contracts saved those five bargaining units a total of 1,300 jobs, and that had the maintenance and related positions bargaining unit voted to ratify, it would have saved an additional 1,960. An American Airlines spokesperson told the Associated Press following the vote that if the court approved its motion to override contracts, its maintenance hub in Tulsa could be cut from 7,000 workers down to 4,700. Historically, companies usually win such motions; this one is being heard by Judge Sean Lane in New York. The unions are pushing for a merger between American Airlines and US Airways, with an expert for the flight attendants union testifying in bankruptcy court that a merger is “not an option. It’s not an alternative. It’s inevitable.” (Continued below the fold) 
For the first time in recent history, Mitt Romney actually held the advantage in the majority of national polls released this week, besting the Democratic incumbent in five of the nine national polls dropped this week. President Obama, however, still looks comfortable on a state-by-state analysis, though perhaps incrementally less comfortable than he did two weeks ago. Just the same, the HuffPo/Pollster electoral map of the presidential race still gives Barack Obama the edge in states totaling 284 electoral votes, more than enough for re-election. For his part, Mitt Romney has locked down just 170 electoral votes in the same analysis. This odd dichotomy, more than any other statistic, has been the hallmark of the month of May in the horse-race political world. If one solely focuses on national polls, an Obama re-elect looks like no better than a 50/50 prospect. But, when analyzing the lay of the land on a state-by-state basis, Republicans would have a hard time feeling confident about their prospects. Downballot, meanwhile, we have some growing discontent in Wisconsin, where some intrasquad squabbling marked a week where Republicans were close to growing complacent over their prospects in next month’s recalls. In the Senate, another establishment frontrunner failed to make it past primary day. And, in the House, the Granite State could be headed for its third election out of four where it completely flips the script from a partisan standpoint. All that (and more!) in the “only two weeks to sign up for Netroots Nation 2012″ edition of the Weekend Digest. 
Hello, human diary. It is again I, Mitt. Very little to report today, Mr. Diary. We are beginning to vet possible vice presidential units in earnest. As of the moment, the most highly regarded choices seem to be these: Marco Rubio. Pros: An ethnic fellow. Cons: We previously stated we were not going to consider ethnic fellows. Ted Nugent. Pros: Seems to bond extremely well with the common Republican units. Cons: Insane. Paul Ryan. Pros: Young, energetic. Considered clever by Washington insiders. Cons: Insane. Exxon Mobil. Pros: An established brand name. Shares my views on wealth, regulation and tax breaks. Cons: May raise Constitutional questions. This is a daunting question. Our campaign may need to contract additional support in order to find the best suited candidate for the vice presidency. Eric F. suggests we contact Dick Cheney to head our decision-making team, as we understand he has previous experience in this area. 
Conservative public enemy #1, especially the gay Nazi unionized ones Since gay marriages are now mandatory (details, below the fold), I call dibs on Paul Rudd. 