Talk:Racial discrimination in jury selection

History section should include peremptory challenge cases

While systematic exclusion was addressed by Norris v. Alabama, it wasn't until Batson v. Kentucky that the Court dealt with the problem of use of peremptory challenges producing an all-white jury in any particular case. As a number of the examples show, all-white juries remained a problem after Norris both because it was effectively ignored in many jurisdictions and because the burden of proving systematic exclusion was set so high. The Batson article should provide some sources and I hope to get back to this, but anyone else is welcome to add the info. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Added brief description of Batson. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

George Zimmerman

Why is is George Zimmerman listed in acquittal of whites defendants? Isn't he hispanic? Is it appropriate to consider him white for the purposes of this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.234.49 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to remove it earlier, and recommended the page for temp protection, but apparently it didn't receive any. Zimmerman is neither white, nor the jury in his case all-white, he does not fit the description of anything pertaining to this article. 97.89.17.164 (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The jury was composed of five people known to be white and one token Hispanic, with no African-American jurors. Of course, in the State of Florida, a white Cuban, who often is more culturally white than Latino and as a class has been historically dominant over Afro-Cubans within Cuba and African-Americans in Miami-Dade County (see article from Discover Magazine, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/the-case-of-the-white-cubans/), could be considered Hispanic. Unfortunately, we have no idea what the identity of this juror is. I would recommend inclusion, but with this caveat. Also, if you put George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin side-by-side, you could be forgiven for not seeing the "Hispanic" features on him. Furthermore, his father is white. The only people I see calling him a Hispanic or half-Hispanic are people who subscribe to the one-drop rule anyways.DevilInPgh (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of two minds about whether to include Zimmerman. In the first instance, this line from a Reuters article that was pretty widely picked up catches the sense in which Zimmerman should be included: "The verdict by a nearly all-white jury of six women in the trial of former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman reverberated around the country...." [1]. On the other hand, if we expand the current category to include "nearly" all-white juries and half-white defendants, the category could become subjective and unmanageable. The best thing to do might be to wait and see how this is written about over time and whether the racial background of the jury is emphasized. What do other people think? 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• If Zimmerman is white, so are Aaron Hernandez and Obama. 69.143.125.47 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Racist premise

I would argue that the title of this article - "All-white jury" is inherently racist. The implication is that only all-white (not "all-black" or "all-Hispanic") juries produce biased results. Even the lead reference, from Scientific American, which uses that provocative term in the title of its article, then goes on to say that the subject is actually about "homogeneous juries" vs. diverse juries. There is nothing in this article which supports the notion that all-white juries demonstrate any more bias than all-black juries. Racially homogeneous juries would be the better, neutral, term for this article. Gulbenk (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the fucking article, genius? Or even just the lead? "Racial discrimination in jury selection has a long history in the United States." The historical problem is all-white juries, not "racially homogenous juries". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, your comments point out the problem with this article. There is no fact presented within this article to support the notion that all-white or all-black juries are a "problem" (as you say) or that they are inherently illegal. There is no support for the notion that an all-white jury is more or less biased than an all-black jury. Or that either is a "problem". You are confusing the illegal practice of racial discrimination in the selection of jurors, with the composition of a jury selected on criteria other than race. The Scientific American article, referenced in support of this article, discusses a single limited study which demonstrated a slight benefit to the deliberation process when juries contain a diverse composition. It is not explained if that slight benefit is actually statistically significant. So, if you wish to maintain an article about historic racial discrimination in the selection of juries, you can probably do that with a number of the references cited. But the rest of the article is pure conjecture and should be eliminated. Specifically, the 'Notable cases' section, which implies a biased outcome to certain cases. There is no evidence to support the argument that the racial composition of the jury alone contributed to the various outcomes cited.Gulbenk (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that discuss "racially homogenous juries" or "racially homogeneous juries" but not "all-white juries", more power to you. (I couldn't find two dozen.) I think you're engaging in original research| in a quest to pursue a perverse sort of political correctness.

With respect to your accusation of "pure conjecture", it is pure fantasy to imagine that a 300-year history of excluding black people from juries had no effect on the administration of justice. Nobody can reconstruct historical events to test what might have been had things been different ("what if Lincoln had survived?"), so all causative "conclusions" about history are "pure conjecture". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If, in the 300-year history of excluding black people from juries, you can document instances where that practice was shown to be the reason for a specific verdict, then cite those instances. Right now, however, the 'Notable cases' section does not do that. It simply lists selected high profile cases to support an unsubstantiated assumption. The last part of your response (if I read it correctly) acknowledges that. This article does a good job of documenting the illegal practice of race-based juror selection. But it goes off the rails when it tries to link that practice to specific outcomes. Gulbenk (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You're delving into the absurd, and I think you know it. Since double jeopardy attaches to a defendant, a trial cannot be repeated with a different jury to see what the verdict might have been. But when an all-white jury acquits a white defendant accused of lynching a black boy in minutes, despite the defendant's acknowledgement that he committed the crime, and the defendant and jury members high-five one another on their way out of court, one would have to be willfully blind not to see what just happened.

You started this silly discussion with the ridiculous assertion that naming the article "all-white jury" was inherently racist. Now you want to argue about sources? Please stop moving the goalposts. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing absurd about this. My initial title suggestion was lame. But a title change is certainly in order. 'Racial discrimination in the selection of jurors' is the illegal practice discussed in this article. Other unsupported assumptions, no matter how much you wish to believe in them, have no place in this article. There are many reasons for unjust outcomes in jury verdicts. Perhaps jurors were stupid, or didn't listen to the evidence, or hated the defense attorney, or a thousand other reasons. You can't cherry pick one or two instances (as you did, above) where you think racial discrimination played a part in the verdict, and then apply that across the board to every jury composed solely of white people. That is the "absurd" argument. I'm not moving the goal post on you. I'm refining the argument, and objective, based on your input. I think that is how we collaborate and get things done here. Gulbenk (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"My initial title suggestion was lame." In another two weeks, maybe you'll come to your senses and realize that the rest of your suggestions are just as lame. I'll wait and see. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If you think that 'Racial discrimination in the selection of jurors' is not the appropriate title, I would like to hear your suggestions. But All-white jury does not describe the subject of the article, and it pre-supposes that a jury composed solely of white people is inherently prejudiced. That is, as I said in the beginning, racist in its very nature. That is not going to change in two weeks. Gulbenk (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the article? "All-white jury" exactly describes the subject matter, which is explicitly stated, with examples. Any reader who makes it through the first paragraph has no reason to pre-suppose anything, since 3 sentences in, we read, "... the phrases 'all-white jury' and 'all-black jury' may raise the expectation that deliberations may be less than fair." What could be clearer? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE, thanks for joining the discussion. You prove my point. That the term "All-white jury" presupposes (pre-judges) an outcome, from the beginning. That is demonstrated by the language you just cited, stating that the term "all-white jury" raises "expectations" of unfair outcomes. Expectations are presumptions, not facts, and they are not always borne out. So the first paragraph states that people feel that all-white juries are unfair. Then the article never proves that point. Instead, it documents at length another, different, point. That racial discrimination in the selection of jurors is illegal, and that this form of discrimination has a long history in the US. That argument is well documented, and not disputed here. Finally, the article seeks to reinforce the first point (unfairness) by listing a number of high profile cases. The references to the cases confirm that they existed (that was never in question) but the references do not prove that the racial composition of the jury was the reason for the specified outcome. The inclusion of this section (which I tried to remove) simply implies that point, just like "expectations" implies something unproven. There has been research in this area. I can (and will, if necessary) cite a lengthy published article written by the preeminent researcher in this field, who is already cited in this article for a related study, which shows that the polar opposite of the "expectations" implied in this section have been demonstrated in his mock jury research. But he also goes on to say that no proof has been offered to show that mock jury research results correlate with real world jury results, or that historic jury verdicts can be shown to result from jury racial composition alone. No proof, just "expectations". The article works when it documents the history of racial discrimination in juror selection, but goes off the rails when it tries to play to popular prejudice (expectations) of unfair verdicts from all-white juries. Gulbenk (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Content revision and article name change

The following discussion originally took place on the Talk page of user Malik Shabazz and is re-posted here in order to solicit additional comments and serve notice of potential revisions and a proposed name change, if the expanded discussion points in that direction. All interested parties are asked to share their views. Gulbenk (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Content revision will continue, in order to conform this article to the single topic of discrimination in juror selection. At some point, the article should be retitled to reflect those changes. Additional comments on that subject are needed. Gulbenk (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Malik, I have waited for IronDome's input, but it looks like he may have lost interest in this issue. I would like to resume my edits to this article, but I don't want to appear to be breaking my pledge to wait for third party input. Your suggestions? Gulbenk (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gulbenk. If Irondome is too busy or has lost interest, we can ask for a third opinion at WP:3O. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No, i'm here gents. Just been a bit diverted with various r/l & WP subjects of late. Ready to contribute. Simon Irondome (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gulbenk, lets start from the top. A brief over-view of your ideas for improvement, and I know we covered aspects of this but maybe a few days out may have further clarified some angles. Major problems in order of priority and proposed edits would be really useful. Lets see if Malik can come back with some viewpoints then and I will add my 2p, and hopefully we can all come out of this with new ideas and an improved article if that is possible, as i'm sure it is. I think we should remember the most important participant who can't comment, the reader. Lets do right by them. Simon Irondome (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Irondome thanks again for your willingness to take this on. Give me a day or two to put something together. Gulbenk (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for article improvement. First, the present article is actually two separate articles cobbled together. One is the history of racial discrimination in juror selection in the United States. That article is supported by a significant number of references to legislative action and court decisions. One can construct that stand-alone article in a straight forward linear timeline. The second article purports to demonstrate the racial bias in the deliberations of all-white juries. It references the fact that there is a perception of bias, and then through inference attempts to validate that perception by listing select racially charged (race salience) cases. The references attached to those cases only confirm that the cases are real, not that racial bias by an all-white jury was the specific reason for the verdict. In fact, there is research which supports the argument that all-white juries are less likely to consider race when involved in "race salience" cases. That can be found here: [2]. If there is a article to be made of the subject, it should be separate from the article on racial discrimination in juror selection. An article about bias in all-white and all-black juries would be a great deal more complex than the simple article on discrimination in juror selection. Many of the findings, supported by studies conducted by a number of researchers involved in this field, are counter-intuitive... and in conflict with the unsupported assertions (and inferences) made in the current article. Gulbenk (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Malik, do you have time, now, to share your thoughts on this matter? Gulbenk (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Still here. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry guys. Thanks for the reminder. I'll post my thoughts a little later today. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your patience. I think Gulbenk may be onto something with his suggestion that there are actually two articles in All-white jury. There's material that maybe should be moved to the tongue-twisting History of racial discrimination in juror selection in the United States or merged into Jury selection in the United States#Discrimination. I'm not as convinced as he is that the sources concerning the historic cases—both those cited in the article (which I haven't read) and other books and papers that have been written about some of these prominent cases—merely "infer" (his word) that racial bias was the primary reason for the verdict reached. Jury trials can't be replicated for "scientific" analysis of what would happen if one variable—such as the race of the defendant—were changed, but neither can wars or many other historical events, and yet we still take historians at their word when they write that "x was the cause (or a primary cause) of y", so I don't understand why Gulbenk is so dismissive of the idea that a historian can conclude that racial bias on the part of an all-white jury was the reason for its verdict.

On a related note, I just noticed that Racial discrimination in jury selection redirects to All-white jury, which probably isn't appropriate. When we resolve our differences, we ought to consider what the best target for that redirect is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Both of you colleagues make strong points. I think the initial road to explore is a point reached by all parties, which I agree with also, that there is material for at least another article here for creation. Jury selection in the United States#Discrimination is a potentially good spot. I would suggest yet a third potential article subject, Historiography of Jury selection controvosies in the United States Justice system, which may be a new area to explore a scientific v a historical approach. Need to immerse myself in source material. Initial thoughts here. The third mooted article may be a place to hash out the major concerns, in sandbox perhaps, as a collaborative exercise. Happy to continue with this. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So, we trim the current article (to one subject), retitle it, and move our other concerns to a sandbox. Happy to do that, if it is what we all agree on. Gulbenk (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Irondome, would you please transpose this discussion to the Talk page of All-white jury, so that we can serve notice to interested parties about the title and content changes contemplated by this discussion? Thanks! Gulbenk (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, what's the status on these proposed changes? At the moment, this phrase only appears in one of the provided sources and the rest of the article appears to be stitched together from other topics. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this be re-named "All same-race jury" since the lead does not specifically summarize all-white juries and implies that any jury composed of people from a single racial group may be biased?

The title as it is violates WP:NPOV because it implies that only all-white juries will convict based upon racial bias. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No. This has already been discussed before, and it's false-balance which has little connection to what the article actually says.

Actually, I'm not really clear on why "all-black jury" was included in the lede as prominently as it was. It's an extraordinarily rare phrase compared to "all-white jury". Most uses of the phrase I can find are using it as a hypothetical counter-example to a real-life example of an all-white jury. As the article explains, Racial discrimination in jury selection has a long history in the United States. If this implies something about all-white juries, that's not necessarily a problem with neutrality, because that implication is backed up by history and sources. If you can find a reliable source which discusses "all-back juries", or even which discusses all same-race juries in general, I would be interested in seeing that. Most sources which discuss this as an actual occurrence discuss all-white juries, regardless of how they phrase it. It looks like the phrase "all-black jury" was used as a test-phrase to understand how people react to the phrase, not as an example of the issues with racial discrimination in jury selection. I This distinction should be made clear, otherwise this just seems like more false balance. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a significant body of research regarding the racial composition of juries, and how that might effect outcome. All with mock juries, since real world examples don't lend themselves to reliable examination and sampling. If you Google the authors cited in some of the academic papers referenced in the article, you will find a sampling of those articles... which will lead you to more researchers and even more articles. While a large number of the articles deal mainly with all-white juries, the dynamics of all-black (or nearly all black) juries are also examined. With some interesting findings. All black juries aren't all that unusual in Atlanta, so it's not a theoretical construct. Gulbenk (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many real-world examples of all-black juries, but that's not precisely my problem. The issue is that "all-white jury" has a specific, real world meaning associated with historical, contemporary, and theoretical situations. All-black juries are not discussed in the body at all, so they are not established as being significant. We should not presume that they are functionally identical to all-white juries unless this is clearly established in the article with sources. This is a false balance and undue weight problem, at best. These sources need to be summarized, not merely assumed. Does that explain my concerns?

As for criminal, Grand Jury, etc., I restored and modified a previous version as a stylistic concern to avoid the introduction being too abrupt. The phrase "however" is setting up something as an exception, so we need to establish the norm, first, if that makes sense. I realize this is kind of esoteric, and I have no attachment to this phrasing. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Most references to all-white juries do so to establish the presumption of, or rationale for, prejudicial outcomes based on racial discrimination. There are examples where it is simply used as a slur, even when racial considerations are not a major factor in a trial. In years past, some New York Times journalists were fond of using that phrase to explain imponderable verdicts in Southern courts. But, slurs aside, I think most readers find their way to this article because of questions concerning racial discrimination in our legal system. It comes as a surprise to many that all-white and all-black juries are completely legal...so long as the selection of the jurors does not involve racial discrimination. So the bulk of the article, at present, deals with the history of racial discrimination in jury selection, and how that was addressed by the courts. I think you raise a good point, however, when you observe that all-black juries are not discussed in the body of the text. They should be. The numerous mock jury research projects that I mentioned reach similar conclusions about the strange dynamics of all-white and all-black juries, and it is not what you might guess it to be. The article could go a long way toward bringing those findings to a wider segment of the population (and not just to the handful of jury selection specialists who are already aware of the research, and base their recommendations upon it). I think the article should be expanded in that direction, and when time permits, I'll undertake the task - if someone doesn't beat me to it. Gulbenk (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of a surprise that racially homogenous juries are legal, the legislation of the racial makeup of any body of individuals violates the 14th ammendment to the constitution. it's pretty bizarre that this article even exists in its current state because it relies on people that have no concept of jurisprudence arguing that the law needs to take race into account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.102.138 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of credit for claim of perceived unfairness

The edits of 10 May 2023 removed the credit to Rebecca Saxe for the observation that a racially homogeneous jury may create a perception of unfairness. Is the fact that this is her opinion relevant, given that this is published in a reliable source? I don't know, but I'm inclined to think that this enables the reader to find out more about the person who is responsible for publishing this observation. I'm leaving it alone for now, but I am soliciting other's opinions. If I don't see a compelling reason to omit the credit, I intend to reinstate it. (As an aside, I wonder if the perception of fairness of juries wouldn't generally be improved by seeking heterogeneity among various pertinent dimensions.) Fabrickator (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)