The Tarrant County district attorney's office can keep its "bad-juror list" private, the Texas attorney general's office has decided.Do other counties compile Bad Juror lists? Probably. Prosecutors add data to Tarrant's master list after criminal trials, according arguments submitted to the Texas Attorney General who allowed them to withhold the data.
Assistant Attorney General James Morris agreed with the district attorney's office that the document should be exempt from disclosure because it contains prosecutors' subjective impressions and is used in preparation for trials.
In light of the US Supreme Court's decision in Batson, I wonder what is the racial makeup of Tarrant County's Bad Juror list?
One also wonders if they keep a "Good Juror" list?
Via Texas Watchdog.
.jpg)
8 comments:
Another reason to vote for Barbara Ann Radnofsky for AG.
I doubt she'd have ruled any differently, and particularly without having read it, I don't even know that I think this is an incorrect ruling, fwiw - I may prefer otherwise, but I can see the argument that it's attorney work product, which has its own exception.
That said, if only for Batson purposes, I'll bet it is eventually released through discovery or some court proceeding.
And I still want to know if other DA's offices have Bad Juror Lists. Y'all?
The Dallas DA's office kept a list for years. Defense attorneys got access to them on a case by case basis in the early 90's. It essentially was a list of jurors who did not vote to convict in earlier cases. Without knowing the details of the case and the prosecutor's criteria for listing a juror you could not put the list in context. It was essentially useless and became a crutch for lazy prosecutors.
It was essentially useless and became a crutch for lazy prosecutors.
So that's a yes, then. Harris County prosecutors have one.
Rage
I forget: Do the DAs work for the citizens or do the citizens work for the DAs?
Grits is right, the AG's opinion here is solid based on the law (the list is attorney work product just like their personal notes or strategy). The Batson issue is interesting: there's no way to know if the prosecutor is using the list in a particular case unless they're open & obvious about it. I guess you'd have to make a Batson challenge, then ask whether the prosecutor was using the list for this particular voir dire, then argue that a particular strike from the list was race/gender/ethnicity-based.
From a practical standpoint, I couldn't agree more that this kind of thing becomes a crutch for lazy lawyers. Stereotyping based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, affluence is just a short-cut that, while sometimes accurate, is also sometimes not. Personally I'd rather base my decisions on something more concrete.
Rage, can't you confine your stupidity to murrays blog?
Jeez.
Rage, can't you confine your stupidity to murrays blog?
No, there's plenty of my stupidity to go around.
Rage
Post a Comment