Minnesota Man May Get New Trial After Jurors Admit They Thought He Must Be Guilty Because He's Blac

[marble falls]

Minnesota Man May Get New Trial After Jurors Admit They Thought He Must Be Guilty Because He's Black
It's enough to get a new hearing, if not a new trial.
By Brad Reed / Raw Story
December 21, 2017, 11:21 AM GMT

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/minnesota-man-may-get-new-trial-after-jurors-admit-they-thought-he-must-be-guilty

A Minneapolis man may get a new trial after two jurors came forward and admitted that racism was a major reason why they chose to convict him.

Local news station Fox 9 reports that two jurors are now saying that they were influenced by racist arguments made by another juror during deliberations when they decided to convict Michael Smith, who has been in jail for the past five years for illegally possession a firearm as a convicted felon.

Smith was accused by police of illegally possessing a firearm just months after he was released after serving a ten-year prison sentence for a third-degree murder charge. The police never produced any concrete evidence linking Smith to the firearm in question, so the trial came down to whose word jurors chose to believe.

The jury foreman said this week that a major reason they chose to believe the police was because of racism — and they said that one juror told his peers that Smith must be guilty because “he is a black person with a previous criminal record living in North Minneapolis… you know he’s just a banger from the hood.”

Smith has maintained his innocence the entire time and has insisted that his conviction was completely unfounded. According to Fox 9, the new revelations of racism on the part of jurors are “enough to get a new hearing early next year and a possible new trial.”




Brad Reed is a writer living in Boston. His work has previously appeared in the American Prospect Online, and he blogs frequently at Sadly, No!.

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/minnesota-man-may-get-new-trial-after-jurors-admit-they-thought-he-must-be-guilty

[madaboutharry]

1. It is disgraceful that the comment

of the juror was not reported to the judge at the time it was made. Why do people find it so hard to do the right thing?

[marble falls]

2. I was on a jury where a hispanic male was charged with DUI, contributing to the delinquicy of ....

minors, open container.

The car was stopped late. Three adults, three minors. The driver passed 3 or 4 field sobriety tests. There was a six pack in the car with 3 full and 3 empty. When the driver was given a blood alcohol test he measured .05.

The judge asked all jurors to disqualify themselves if they were or were married to or related to peace officers, and if they or anyone in their family had been victim of a DUI driver.

When we were in the jury room it developed that one juror had a neighbor she considered a second son killed by a drunk driver and two others had immediate family in law enforcement, one retired from the sheriff's department, the other's husband an active city cop. The way we found out was they tried to use their experience to drive a guilty verdict.

It was obvious the arresting officer was using his sixth sense to stop the car and under Illinois law, a .05 was impaired driving if the driver had been driving erratically, which wasn't indicated by anything the cop said. there was no evidence the kids had a beer. But there were open containers. So after a lot of arguing, we only found him guilty of an open container.

It was long, hard and I felt like justice was done. The last thing I thought would help would have been to report those three jurors.