Researchers led by Duke University examined the jury pools of two Florida counties over a 10-year period and found that all-white
juries convicted black defendants nearly 16 percent more often than white defendants.
When there was at least one black member of the jury, that gap was nearly eliminated.
The researches used the two Florida counties because those counties had detailed statistical information about jury compositions
available. They looked at data from 2000 to 2010 from noncapital felony criminal cases and studied the effects of age, race
and gender of jury pools on conviction rates. Their article focuses on the racial aspect of juries.
Where there were no black jurors, black defendants were convicted 81 percent of the time; white defendants were convicted
66 percent of the time.
When there was at least one black juror, conviction rates for black defendants were 71 percent and 73 percent for white defendants.
When blacks were in the jury pool, they were slightly more likely to be seated on a jury than whites. About 40 percent of
the jury pools examined had no black members.
“The crossing pattern exhibited by our main findings thus leads to our final conclusion: that jurors of at least one
race (and possibly both) either interpret evidence differently depending on the race of the defendant or use a standard of
evidence that varies with the race of the defendant. Either possibility implies that the interaction of defendant and jury
race fundamentally alters the mapping of evidence to conviction rates and, thus, that the impact of the racial composition
of the jury pool (and seated jury) is a factor that merits much more attention and analysis to ensure the fairness of the
criminal justice system,” the article states.
The study was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics and conducted in part by staff in Duke’s economics department
and researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and Queen Mary, University of London.
You can view the study
online.
Welcome to First Impressions, a place for sharing your thought about legal news and issues in Indiana and beyond. I'm your host, Jennifer Nelson, Web editor for Indiana Lawyer. Just like in the courtroom, we encourage everyone to interact with civility.
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.