Half of the potential Ahmaud Arbery jurors are ignoring court summons over fear for their lives: report
According to a report from CNN , jury selection in the case of the killing of Ahmaud Arbery is being hampered as potential jurors are either ignoring or refusing to appear to be considered over fears of violence.
With the high profile trial of the three white men accused of tracking down the Black man down and shooting him while he was out running set to start, the prosecutors and defense attorneys are worried and complaining about the jury pool.
On Oct 25, CNN reported that, out of the 600 possible jurors summoned, only "60 people who have been questioned since last Monday, many said they have already formed strong opinions about the case, know the defendants or are scared to sit. They point to potential consequences specific verdicts may have on the community."
On Tuesday morning "New Day" host John Berman updated that report saying more than half have refused to show up.
"They're having a hard time getting people to show up for jury duty," Berman exclaimed. "Half the people aren't showing up and, if you listen to the statements for some of the people being called, they're afraid, and that's deeply concerning for a whole range of reasons."
"Of course it is," CNN legal analysts Laura Coates confirmed. "This case comes down to vigilante justice -- if that's even a thing -- it is an oxymoron. He was running down the street, and he was chased down by three men who thought they had some real reason to stop him and then to use deadly force. The jurors in this case, first of all, you're not allowed to, unlike what Steve Bannon and the like believe, you're not allowed to thumb your nose at a subpoena. This is a jury summons; it is a crime to not show up for court."
"However, it is part of that larger issue as you speak of, John," she continued. "The idea of people knowing this is a very high profile, highly publicized case, that it is going to be fraught with questions about race in America, about law enforcement, even though no cops were actually on trial for this, but they're afraid about what the ramifications may be. It is a civic duty of people to be on juries. This is somebody who lost his life and he has every right to have a jury on behalf of his family and the prosecution, to be able to have a jury of people who will decide this case."
"The defense is saying -- they're pointing to this and saying they're not getting a fair cross-section," host Brianna Keilar interjected. "Basically sounds like they're saying they're not getting enough white people, you know. They're talking about having the accused being able to look at the jury pool and see themselves in the jury. What do you say to that?"
"First of all, the phrase jury of your peers does not mean you get to have somebody with your exact identity, demographics, your age, your race, your religion, your gender," Coates explained. "It means a jury of people from the community, a cross-section of the community, of people who have every right to serve and should serve on a jury. There is no requirement you get a certain race, but that's part of why this case is so troubling.'
"So this is a concerning issue, the Supreme Court has dealt with this time and time again, about having jurors who are representative of the community, but, remember, the Boston bomber -- that was a case where the judge said there was not enough screening and that ended up on the appeal before the Supreme Court. We have that possibility as well," she warned.
Watch below:
Leave a Comment
Related Post