http://news.yahoo.com/court-decides-gay-juror-taken-off-case-095101591.html
QuoteA multibillion dollar case between two giant pharmaceutical companies grappling over arcane antitrust issues has unexpectedly turned into a gay rights legal imbroglio that raises questions over whether lawyers can bounce potential jurors solely based on their sexual orientation.
The case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Wednesday centers on whether Abbott Laboratories broke antitrust laws when it increased the price of its popular and vital AIDS drug Norvir by 400 percent in 2007. But broader public attention likely will be given to the three-judge panel's look at whether Abbott wrongfully removed a juror in the case brought by competitor SmithKlineBeecham.
The cost increase angered many in the gay community. SmithKlineBeecham, meanwhile, claims it was meant to harm the launch of its new AIDS treatment, which requires the use of Norvir. And the company contends "Juror B" was removed simply because he was gay.
"It's a big deal," said Vik Amar, University of California, Davis professor. "The headlines from this case are going to be about antitrust law — it will be about sexual orientation in the jury pool."
Before trials, lawyers for both sides are allowed to use several "preemptory challenges" each to remove someone from the jury pool without legal justification.
For its part, Abbot argued, it bounced "Juror B" for three reasons, none having anything to do with his sexual orientation. Lawyers said they felt the juror's impartiality was compromised because he was the only potential juror who had heard of the SmithKline treatment in question, that he was also the only prospective juror who had lost a friend to AIDS and that he worked for courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 prohibited lawyers from using their challenges to bounce a potential juror from a case because of race.
Eight years later, the high court added gender to the prohibition of potential jurors lawyers can remove from a trial without a legal reason.
But the high court has never ruled on sexual orientation. The California Supreme Court has barred the removal of gays from jury pools without justification since 2000, but its rulings aren't binding on federal courts.
In July, the three appeals court judges asked the drug companies what effect the U.S. Supreme Court's striking down of the federal ban on same-sex marriage benefits had on the antitrust case. It's the latest high-profile gay-rights issue the court has heard. The 9th Circuit had earlier struck down California's ban on same-sex marriages and ordered the same-sex partner of a court employee to receive the same benefits as married colleagues.
Unsurprisingly, Abbott lawyers argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act had no effect on its legal fight with SmithKline.
Abbott argues that the high court's DOMA ruling doesn't mean anything in the antitrust case because it didn't put gays in the same class as minorities and women who need special protection during jury selection. The company's lawyers urged the judges to stay focused on the antitrust laws and procedural issues at the center of the appeal.
SmithKline is joined by gay rights activists Lambda Legal and other public interest groups who filed their own legal argument urging the court to protect gays from getting bounced from juries for no reason.
"The discrimination at issue here is particularly harmful, because it reinforces historical invidious discrimination within the court system and undermines the integrity of the judicial system," Lambda wrote the court.
Wow. This case has got "garbon" written all of it. A lot that can/will/may affect you based on what happens.
So you get out of jury duty because you're gay and the problem is...?
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 10:14:46 AM
So you get out of jury duty because you're gay and the problem is...?
It would be better than having to admit again to my "aversion" to police officers. That said, because of NY jury service rules, I think I'm safe from being called again for a bit.
That said, if they are right on why Abbott excluded him (related to orientation and not just that he had a friend who died of AIDs), I don't see why he should have been excluded. Though perhaps, I'd have been dropped by opposing counsel for my pharma connections.
Quote from: merithyn on September 18, 2013, 10:08:46 AM
Wow. This case has got "garbon" written all of it. A lot that can/will/may affect you based on what happens.
I know, gays, pharma and California!
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 10:23:58 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 18, 2013, 10:08:46 AM
Wow. This case has got "garbon" written all of it. A lot that can/will/may affect you based on what happens.
I know, gays, pharma and California!
:w00t:
I thought the whole point of "peremptory" challenges is that you don't need to give reasons.
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:55:06 AM
I thought the whole point of "peremptory" challenges is that you don't need to give reasons.
From the article though, it seems you can be challenged if it appears that you did so on a discriminatory basis...though it appears race/gender are the two protected ones currently.
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:55:06 AM
I thought the whole point of "peremptory" challenges is that you don't need to give reasons.
Cant be based on race, sex, or ethnicity. Batson v. Kentucky etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 11:38:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:55:06 AM
I thought the whole point of "peremptory" challenges is that you don't need to give reasons.
Cant be based on race, sex, or ethnicity. Batson v. Kentucky etc.
Then what's the point?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 11:38:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:55:06 AM
I thought the whole point of "peremptory" challenges is that you don't need to give reasons.
Cant be based on race, sex, or ethnicity. Batson v. Kentucky etc.
But so now lawyers do have to give reasons, and can be challenged as to the truthfulness of the reasons provided.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 10:14:46 AM
So you get out of jury duty because you're gay and the problem is...?
that good citizens don't wish to avoid doing their part.
Quote from: Maximus on September 18, 2013, 12:03:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 10:14:46 AM
So you get out of jury duty because you're gay and the problem is...?
that good citizens don't wish to avoid doing their part.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Maximus on September 18, 2013, 12:03:43 PM
that good citizens don't wish to avoid doing their part.
:yes:
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 11:49:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 11:38:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:55:06 AM
I thought the whole point of "peremptory" challenges is that you don't need to give reasons.
Cant be based on race, sex, or ethnicity. Batson v. Kentucky etc.
But so now lawyers do have to give reasons, and can be challenged as to the truthfulness of the reasons provided.
Sorta. Johnson v. California elaborated on the standard of proof that the objecting party has to meet when accusing counsel of using peremptory challenges in a racial manner, and it's low. It's a three-step process: 1)establishing a prima facie case of racial motivation, for which you need only supply evidence proving a reasonable inference that it was discriminatory; 2)then the court demands a reason from the prosecutor; 3)judge decides whether it is more likely than not that the challenge was improperly motivated.
But you do have to meet that initial burden, I guess.
Iirc, Justice Marshall (who concurred with the decision in Batson) just thought peremptory strikes ought to be done away with.
Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2013, 11:46:43 AM
Then what's the point?
That still leaves a lot: age, socio-economic status, family status, profession, political affilation, regional origin, physical appearance unrealted to race, even (probably) religious affiliation.
Situations like this always confuse me - if you can toss someone off a jury because you think they look like an asshole, how on earth can it ever be demonstrated you tossed them because of their race?
If you think the four black people in your jury pool all look like assholes.
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2013, 01:33:44 PM
Situations like this always confuse me - if you can toss someone off a jury because you think they look like an asshole, how on earth can it ever be demonstrated you tossed them because of their race?
See ideologue posts above. Sometimes it may be pretty clear, but other times it is a mess.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2013, 01:33:44 PM
Situations like this always confuse me - if you can toss someone off a jury because you think they look like an asshole, how on earth can it ever be demonstrated you tossed them because of their race?
Sometimes it may be pretty clear, but other times it is a mess.
Somewhere in there the rights of the parties seems to have been lost. How unbiased is a juror going to be if they were preemptorily challenged and then reinstated because of some evidence racism (or some other impermissable ground) played a role in the decision.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2013, 01:57:56 PM
Somewhere in there the rights of the parties seems to have been lost. How unbiased is a juror going to be if they were preemptorily challenged and then reinstated because of some evidence racism (or some other impermissable ground) played a role in the decision.
The original idea behind the Batson challenge was to deal with the practice of prosecutors systematically striking black veniremen in cases brought vs. black defendants. In fact, that was the fact pattern of Batson; the prosecutors used preemptories to knock all non-whites off the panel. So there the rights of the parties were in play. (jury of one's peers).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2013, 01:57:56 PM
Somewhere in there the rights of the parties seems to have been lost. How unbiased is a juror going to be if they were preemptorily challenged and then reinstated because of some evidence racism (or some other impermissable ground) played a role in the decision.
The original idea behind the Batson challenge was to deal with the practice of prosecutors systematically striking black veniremen in cases brought vs. black defendants. In fact, that was the fact pattern of Batson; the prosecutors used preemptories to knock all non-whites off the panel. So there the rights of the parties were in play. (jury of one's peers).
Man, sometimes I wonder about US prosecutors. I try my hardest to make sure there are racial minorities on my jury, precisely because I don't want the accused or the public at large to think at the end of the day "he was only convicted because it was an all-white jury".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2013, 01:57:56 PM
Somewhere in there the rights of the parties seems to have been lost. How unbiased is a juror going to be if they were preemptorily challenged and then reinstated because of some evidence racism (or some other impermissable ground) played a role in the decision.
The original idea behind the Batson challenge was to deal with the practice of prosecutors systematically striking black veniremen in cases brought vs. black defendants. In fact, that was the fact pattern of Batson; the prosecutors used preemptories to knock all non-whites off the panel. So there the rights of the parties were in play. (jury of one's peers).
Hard facts make bad law. Rather than creating this difficult process of challenging the challenge wouldnt it make more sense to move the trial to a location where the defendant could be tried by their peers and if the court comes to the conclusion, based on these sorts of tactics by prosecutor, that a fair trial is impossible, simply dismiss the case?
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 02:06:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2013, 01:57:56 PM
Somewhere in there the rights of the parties seems to have been lost. How unbiased is a juror going to be if they were preemptorily challenged and then reinstated because of some evidence racism (or some other impermissable ground) played a role in the decision.
The original idea behind the Batson challenge was to deal with the practice of prosecutors systematically striking black veniremen in cases brought vs. black defendants. In fact, that was the fact pattern of Batson; the prosecutors used preemptories to knock all non-whites off the panel. So there the rights of the parties were in play. (jury of one's peers).
Man, sometimes I wonder about US prosecutors. I try my hardest to make sure there are racial minorities on my jury, precisely because I don't want the accused or the public at large to think at the end of the day "he was only convicted because it was an all-white jury".
You are not elected and so you need not pander to the lowest common denominator.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2013, 01:15:37 PM
Iirc, Justice Marshall (who concurred with the decision in Batson) just thought peremptory strikes ought to be done away with.
But then the devil would have no use for Keanu Reeves.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 01:30:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2013, 11:46:43 AM
Then what's the point?
That still leaves a lot: age, socio-economic status, family status, profession, political affilation, regional origin, physical appearance unrealted to race, even (probably) religious affiliation.
Get off my case.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2013, 02:20:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2013, 01:15:37 PM
Iirc, Justice Marshall (who concurred with the decision in Batson) just thought peremptory strikes ought to be done away with.
But then the devil would have no use for Keanu Reeves.
Who?
Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2013, 02:22:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 01:30:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2013, 11:46:43 AM
Then what's the point?
That still leaves a lot: age, socio-economic status, family status, profession, political affilation, regional origin, physical appearance unrealted to race, even (probably) religious affiliation.
Get off my case.
Was he a potential juror or your lawyer? :unsure:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 01:44:43 PM
See ideologue posts above. Sometimes it may be pretty clear, but other times it is a mess.
:(
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 02:22:28 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2013, 02:20:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2013, 01:15:37 PM
Iirc, Justice Marshall (who concurred with the decision in Batson) just thought peremptory strikes ought to be done away with.
But then the devil would have no use for Keanu Reeves.
Who?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impawards.com%2F1997%2Fposters%2Fdevils_advocate_ver2.jpg&hash=bceb72dc2d48b3b967e5082b67ca064637288fb5)
Wah, wah, wah. He's a court employee; in NJ, that would have him off pretty much any jury, regardless of his media or personal exposure to the case in question.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 09:44:15 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/court-decides-gay-juror-taken-off-case-095101591.html
For its part, Abbot argued, it bounced "Juror B" for three reasons, none having anything to do with his sexual orientation. Lawyers said they felt the juror's impartiality was compromised because he was the only potential juror who had heard of the SmithKline treatment in question, that he was also the only prospective juror who had lost a friend to AIDS and that he worked for courts.
As long as the purported reasons sound reasonable, how are they going to prove that he was really bounced just for being gay?