Woman sentenced to indefinite jury duty

over racist answer on a questionnaire

Didn't know judges had this power.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tionnaire.html

Quote:

---

A female juror in a high-profile American mafia murder trial was sentenced to indefinite jury duty after giving racist answers to a court questionnaire.

The Asian woman in her 20s was asked along with hundreds of others to provide answers to the survey prior to serving on the jury for the trial of crime boss Vincent Basciano.

But the woman enraged a Federal Court judge in New York by answering the question, 'Name three people you least admire', with the answer: 'African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.'

When asked by a judge at Brooklyn Federal Court to explain her answer, she replied: 'You always hear about them in the news doing something.'

The woman, known only as 'Juror No. 799', went on to claim all police officers are lazy, and only use their sirens to bypass traffic jams.

Lawyers in the case successfully requested she be removed from jury duty in Basciano's trial due to her 'inappropriate' comments

A furious judge, Nicholas Garaufis, held up the woman's questionnaire in court and told her: 'This is an outrage, and so are you!'
Referring to her racist answers, Judge Garaufis sarcastically asked the juror: 'Why didn't you put Asians down also?'

The woman replied: 'Maybe I should have.'

Jurors in America have been known to try to escape jury duty by providing outlandish answers to jury questionnaires.

But the Asian woman's views evidently backfired, as she has since been told she will serve on the jury until the judge deems her ready for release.

Judge Garaufis added: 'She's coming back [today], Thursday and Friday - and until the future, when I am ready to dismiss her.'

Vincent 'Vinny Gorgeous' Basciano is due to stand trial for murder after allegedly ordering the killing of Randolph Pizzolo in 2004.

Basciano, who is already serving a life sentence for murder, allegedly ordered the 'hit' from in prison and faces the death penalty if convicted again.

One thousand prospective jurors have filled out questionnaires for the Basciano case, approaching the Eastern District of New York record of 1,089 summoned for crime boss John Gotti's trial 20 years ago.

Nearly half of the jurors are removed before they even get to court for questioning due to language barriers, fear of the Mafia or their extreme views for and against the death penalty.

The panel members that do get selected for the trial will be anonymous and transported to the courthouse by U.S. marshals to thwart any possibility of jury tampering.

---

Yeah... they have a LOT of power... dunno how this plays out...

Seems like Something the ACLU would take up though...

sounds like the plot of a pauly shore movie

Hm... interesting that the judge can do that. I doubt that power would stand up in court though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Hm... interesting that the judge can do that. I doubt that power would stand up in court though.

---

It is standing up in court. It's the judge's court.

Hmm. Mandatory jury duty for racists. What's the worst that could happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

It is standing up in court. It's the judge's court.

---

I knew that was coming... you knew what I meant though. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

sounds like the plot of a pauly shore movie

---

http://i43.tower.com/images/mm107013...-cover-art.jpg

Stupid bitch wanted to be a smart ass, well now she can waste her days in the jury pool. Seriously, jury duty is one of the few awesome things about our judicial system...the last refuge of the innocent citizen being framed as guilty. There's no reason to complain, especially with so many shitty cases involving good people that are being screwed over.

hahhahahahahahahahaa wow! That really sucks 799. :( That being said, at least this will keep her out of traffic, nomisayin'?

Seems like to me she answered with statistics....

Good thing you put that in blue, otherwise nobody would have known your were kidding...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

Good thing you put that in blue, otherwise nobody would have known your were kidding...

---

I know. At first I did post it all black, but seconds later realized people would take me serious otherwise. Went right back and edited it.

I'm not sure that the judge has authority to do that, although I suppose he could deem it contempt of court and maintain that her indefinite jury duty is the punishment that best fits the offense. It seems possible to me that potential jurors become subject to the Court's contempt power upon receiving a jury summons -- if they don't show up, they can be punished and if they were to disrupt court proceedings, that too could be punishable. I could see that he could initially characterize the justification for his decision in that regard -- a potential juror did not give (in the judge's mind) meaningful answers to a questionnaire and may have been using those answers to subvert the jury selection process. It's obviously true that people who are disinclined to jury service will furnish answers that make them unlikely to be picked, but in most instances, they're smart enough to make that effort appear subtle. If someone can get out of jury duty with answers like these, the odds increase that others will try the same tactic whereas if this sort of choice is punished in an over-the-top fashion, others won't consider that route. At that level, it has some rational basis and is defensible.

Whatever the potential legal basis for the sanction, though, I think in this particular case, she's pretty clearly facing a unique consequence imposed by a governmental official based upon the expression of a personal viewpoint, which makes the First Amendment applicable. See, e.g., Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)(overturning disturbing the peace conviction of man who was charged for wearing a jacket that said "Fuck the Draft" into a state courthouse; "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.").

To me, it's at least somewhat analogous to the magistrate in Louisiana who famously wouldn't give a mixed-race couple a marriage license. Judges' personal viewpoints don't allow them to violate the constitution in carrying out their official acts. He may believe Juror No. 799 is as loathesome as any individual could be, but that doesn't allow him to treat her differently than others who may appear to him to be less obnoxious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I'm not sure that the judge has authority to do that, although I suppose he could deem it contempt of court and maintain that her indefinite jury duty is the punishment that best fits the offense. It seems possible to me that potential jurors become subject to the Court's contempt power upon receiving a jury summons -- if they don't show up, they can be punished and if they were to disrupt court proceedings, that too could be punishable. I could see that he could initially characterize the justification for his decision in that regard -- a potential juror did not give (in the judge's mind) meaningful answers to a questionnaire and may have been using those answers to subvert the jury selection process. It's obviously true that people who are disinclined to jury service will furnish answers that make them unlikely to be picked, but in most instances, they're smart enough to make that effort appear subtle. If someone can get out of jury duty with answers like these, the odds increase that others will try the same tactic whereas if this sort of choice is punished in an over-the-top fashion, others won't consider that route. At that level, it has some rational basis and is defensible.

Whatever the potential legal basis for the sanction, though, I think in this particular case, she's pretty clearly facing a unique consequence imposed by a governmental official based upon the expression of a personal viewpoint, which makes the First Amendment applicable. See, e.g., Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)(overturning disturbing the peace conviction of man who was charged for wearing a jacket that said "Fuck the Draft" into a state courthouse; "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.").

To me, it's at least somewhat analogous to the magistrate in Louisiana who famously wouldn't give a mixed-race couple a marriage license. Judges' personal viewpoints don't allow them to violate the constitution in carrying out their official acts. He may believe Juror No. 799 is as loathesome as any individual could be, but that doesn't allow him to treat her differently than others who may appear to him to be less obnoxious.

---

interesting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

interesting

---

Yes, it is. Without knowing (innocent until proven guilty) that this isn't a honest viewpoint, and assuming it's an attempt to get out of jury duty, the Judge clearly violated her first amendment rights.

The first amendment applies even when not politically correct. Is this an activist judge at work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, it is. Without knowing (innocent until proven guilty) that this isn't a honest viewpoint, and assuming it's an attempt to get out of jury duty, the Judge clearly violated her first amendment rights.

The first amendment applies even when not politically correct. Is this an activist judge at work?

---

I'd say its more likely a judge who's trying to run an orderly courtroom and is making an example of someone who appears to be getting in the way of that. That is, I tend to believe that his motives are genuinely about the sanctity of the system and the need for jurors to give meaningful answers to questions posed by the court. Obviously, there's judgment in what he's chosen to believe about these answers, but he's also seen thousands of juror questionnaires and likely has never seen such overtly inflammatory responses. I guarantee you that he's seen far more of those answers than anyone posting here has.

Judges are necessarily given a great deal of leeway and discretion in running their courtrooms and there are obviously instances in which the judge can stop a person from saying what he or she wants in the pursuit of maintaining order. No matter the First Amendment rights at stake, the judge certainly has the power to hold a person in contempt for things that are said in the courtroom or for speaking when told that he or she may not speak. Thus, there clearly isn't any sort of absolute freedom of speech in the courtroom.

I've never looked at the question, so I don't know where the First Amendment trumps the contempt power. Ultimately, I suspect that this is a circumstance where the First Amendment wins out, but I also suspect that the judge will relent long before anyone is asked to definitively answer that question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I've never looked at the question, so I don't know where the First Amendment trumps the contempt power. Ultimately, I suspect that this is a circumstance where the First Amendment wins out, but I also suspect that the judge will relent long before anyone is asked to definitively answer that question.

---

I think I worded my response careful enough. Without good evidence the answers were an attempt to get out of jury duty, or as you say, an attempt to mock the court, I think this judge may have a meeting with the Bar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think I worded my response careful enough. Without good evidence the answers were an attempt to get out of jury duty, or as you say, an attempt to mock the court, I think this judge may have a meeting with the Bar.

---

He's a federal judge. He has lifetime tenure and considerable discretion. His conduct will be reviewed by other judges with lifetime tenure and even greater discretion. There is no "Bar" to meet with.

He answers ultimately to Congress. Whatever this action is, it's not an impeachable offense -- it's not treasonous, there is no bribery involved, and it's pretty clearly not criminal and cannot constitute either a high crime or misdemeanor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

He's a federal judge. He has lifetime tenure and considerable discretion. His conduct will be reviewed by other judges with lifetime tenure and even greater discretion. There is no "Bar" to meet with.

He answers ultimately to Congress. Whatever this action is, it's not an impeachable offense -- it's not treasonous, there is no bribery involved, and it's pretty clearly not criminal and cannot constitute either a high crime or misdemeanor.

---

Out of curiosity, if you were mailed a jury summons, but never received it (got lost in the mail, or whatever), can you get in trouble for not appearing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Out of curiosity, if you were mailed a jury summons, but never received it (got lost in the mail, or whatever), can you get in trouble for not appearing?

---

I don't know. I would think that if you never received it -- and could prove it somehow -- you'd probably be okay. But if you were just trying to say that you never received it when you had -- if you simply ignored a summons for jury duty and then later tried to argue that you hadn't ever gotten notice -- I'd think there would be consequences.

Technically any person who fails to appear after being summoned may be fined up to $1000, imprisoned for up to 3 days, ordered to perform community service, or face any combination of those consequences. 28 U.S.C. s. 1866(g).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I don't know. I would think that if you never received it -- and could prove it somehow -- you'd probably be okay. But if you were just trying to say that you never received it when you had -- if you simply ignored a summons for jury duty and then later tried to argue that you hadn't ever gotten notice -- I'd think there would be consequences.

Technically any person who fails to appear after being summoned may be fined up to $1000, imprisoned for up to 3 days, ordered to perform community service, or face any combination of those consequences. 28 U.S.C. s. 1866(g).

---

So just how is one suppose to prove they didn't receive something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

So just how is one suppose to prove they didn't receive something?

---

Usually, there's some sort of affidavit that will suffice as proof, since it's a sworn statement -- it becomes perjurious if knowingly false. Federal courts may have other ways in which those things can be proven. In fact, it wouldn't shock me if federal courts issue jury summons with some sort of receipt signature required.

In any event, the presumption has to be that the summons was received; if the burden is on the government to prove receipt rather than upon the juror to show non-receipt, few people would show up for jury service and many would simply claim that they didn't receive the summons. The system would fall apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Usually, there's some sort of affidavit that will suffice as proof, since it's a sworn statement -- it becomes perjurious if knowingly false. Federal courts may have other ways in which those things can be proven. In fact, it wouldn't shock me if federal courts issue jury summons with some sort of receipt signature required.

In any event, the presumption has to be that the summons was received; if the burden is on the government to prove receipt rather than upon the juror to show non-receipt, few people would show up for jury service and many would simply claim that they didn't receive the summons. The system would fall apart.

---

All the jury summons I have received were by normal mail. Now maybe I never received a certified letter because I always responded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

All the jury summons I have received were by normal mail. Now maybe I never received a certified letter because I always responded.

---

Again, even if they aren't delivered certified, the person who has ignored the summons (whether intentionally or not) is permitted to show good cause for not showing up. If the reason for not showing up is lack of receipt of the summons, I would think that a sworn affidavit would suffice as proof of that fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Technically any person who fails to appear after being summoned may be fined up to $1000, imprisoned for up to 3 days, ordered to perform community service, or face any combination of those consequences. 28 U.S.C. s. 1866(g).

---

Yikes! I better stop losing them. :lol

As expected, the judge relented:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/..._by_judge.html

The judge affirmatively stated that he imposed a sanction because of his view that the juror was seeking to avoid jury duty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge Nicholas Garaufis

On Wednesday, he made it clear it wasn't her views that angered him but what he said was her obvious attempt to weasel out of jury duty by lying.

"My ruling was not based in any way upon whether or not you held any racist views. It was apparent you did not tell the truth," Garaufis told the woman.

"You were the only juror who indicated that you had every form of bias imaginable. You were lying to the court in order to be excused."

---

The story also makes clear that he was concerned about encouraging others to take that approach in an effort to avoid jury duty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge Garaufis

"The purpose of this order was to attempt to create some consequences or disincentive for people who intentionally obstruct the court's ability to empanel a fair and impartial jury," he said.

---

No matter his reasons, several experts agreed that his order likely violated the First Amendment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by story

NYU Law Prof. Stephen Gillers said the judge had no choice but to find her in contempt for lying, or release her. Obnoxious opinions, he said, are not criminal.

"She can't be punished for being a racist," Gillers said. "You don't check the First Amendment at the courtroom door."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eugene Volokh

The woman seems to have reprehensible moral beliefs. This is America, and she’s entitled to possess those beliefs. But government officials are not entitled to punish people for those beliefs, including by requiring them to serve more jury duty as a result of their beliefs.

---

Eugene Volokh