Weeding Out Honest Jurors:
Equality v. Justice in Multi-Racial America

Many authors have touched on aspects of the racial equality religion and the relentless fashion in which the state, business and private sectors of America enforce the kow-towing by all the serfies in this sweet land of liberty. We all have the freedom to worship at the same altar in perfect equality after all.

Because the law can be the most powerful as well as the most sanctimonious arm of the mental laundering process, it is often worth watching for the trends of our future.

Lawyers have shared with me the following story. Because I am not about to call the judge’s office to confirm the small details, the names shall be withheld to protect the guilty.

It seems that in the Superior Court of a certain southern state, a white male judge became excited at the opportunity to display his love for all things great and small and, of course, Equal. After all, his jurisdiction has a substantial percentage of non-whites and this might even rebound in his favor come the next election.

The crime in his court that so agitated him ran as follows. It seems he was presiding over a five-week criminal trial (murder). The potential jury panelists are asked to fill out an extensive questionnaire in order to give the lawyers for both sides a chance to make as intelligent a decision on the jury as they are capable (within the confines of such judicial guidance as the famed Batson decision). One potential juror admitted that he could be possessed of racial prejudices which might affect his ability to be impartial. (From this, I infer that the murder trial was following the usual pattern and involved a sable defendant.)

Hizzoner reads this confession and then berates the panelist in open court, calling him a bigot and implying that he is just trying to duck the jury service. But, because of this answer, the Judge admits that the panelist will have to be excused from service due the special sensitivity towards any dusky defendant.

But, don’t all self-confessed bigots need to be punished? Certainly in this courtroom they do. So the eminent jurist pronounces that the bigot must be made to sit through the trial as what the judge calls a “shadow juror.” I presume that he may not even be given the paltry compensation that jurors are given during his time of incarceration in the courthouse, since he will not actually be serving as a juror. Fortunately, no re-education camp time was ordered by the distinguished Blackstone.

What a laughable spectacle this legal system is becoming. Had the juror concealed his thought-crime and then been seated, the judge would have vented (and who knows what else) at the gentleman for being dishonest and concealing this black spot on his soul. But, since he was honest enough to disclose it, he must still be punished. The court will summarily punish, without any trial, presumably truthful responses to questions posed by the judge in order to pick a fair and impartial jury. The judge compels the panelists to answer truthfully and then punishes them when they do.

From the viewpoint of the lawyers involved in the case, the judge may well be gumming up the works. Based on this train of thought, maybe there is an argument for a mistrial/appeal if the judge’s action had a chilling effect on other panelists that may be borne out by the other panelists’ responses to subsequent questions. This could violate the defendant’s right to a fair trial by impairing his ability to conduct a meaningful voir dire or jury selection. Certainly the appeals process will be drawn out by adding this new issue to the mix. And it is all because a robed sycophant wanted to be noticed for his alertness in stifling hatred and bigotry.

After all, such behavior is likely to make our distinguished jurist more attractive for a slot on the appellate bench. And one day, imagine how Teddy & Company could purr with pleasure to have this unusually sensitive jurist considered for the Supreme circus! Sonia Sotomayor might even agree that this fellow’s sensitivity and life experience do not unfavorably compare with a Latina’s. Not equal, of course, but we still need a few token whites (some of which, regrettably, must be male) for window dressing.

It is almost a waste of time to point out the hypocrisy of the system in this case. But, like a liturgical church service, there is some value in repeating the well-trodden path.

Modern America is moving more and more to the Soviet style system, particularly as far as racial matters are concerned. Here, in this one court room at least, heretical truth is summarily punished. The message is sent to all jury panelists, court officials, litigants, spectators and any who chance to hear about this episode that race heresy is unacceptable.

Maybe this judge will permit the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, particularly The Gulag Archipelago, to be made available for the panelist to permit those exiled into his courtroom to better understand their proper behavior as his zeks.

We can only conclude that in this judge’s mind a false statement is more acceptable than racial heresy. Certainly the truth will not set you free in his courtroom.

The final point: lawyers discussing this matter found a substantial number who either approved of the judge’s decision or viewed it as unimportant. Presumably the “former citizen” or “unperson” could be treated in any manner desired by the judge once he had admitted his heresy. The panelist was now the merest rubbish which could be disposed of as desired without further thought.

This episode, not in California or New England, is the future of the courts as they evolve into revolutionary tribunals.

But I am sure that we will all be stronger for it. Diversity is our strength.

Lord, I believe. Help me in mine unbelief.