The Corner

Re: Motion to Exclude Jews from Jury in Case About Islamic Supremacist Terror

Nathaniel, as Fred Cohn well knows, that motion is a loser. It’s been raised and rejected with numbing regularity in terrorism cases.

The issue in jury selection in any case is whether the juror can be fair and impartial, whether he or she is committed to deciding the case based solely on the evidence and the court’s instructions on the law — without fear or favor. There are very few interpersonal relationships, and no ethnic or racial categories, in which we conclusively presume bias. A reasonably close familial tie would do it — e.g., you shouldn’t sit on a case where, say, your first cousin is accused of a crime. But even being acquainted with the accused is not an automatic basis for exclusion — if it were, you’d have a hard time getting a jury in a small town. 

There is nothing offensive about being offended by offensive behavior. If a juror is moved to convict someone because the criminal conduct involved and the hatred that motivates it are horrific, that is what is supposed to happen — that is a conviction based on the evidence, not on a bias against the defendant. If jurors could be removed for cause just because a defendant expressed nasty views about categories of people, a defendant could theoretically render himself un-triable by making nasty statements about a wide range of categories. Women would never be permitted to sit as jurors on rape cases, black Americans would be excluded in trials of white supremacists, and so on.

The motion is what is offensive. In my many years of trying criminal cases, I was always impressed by how honest prospective jurors tended to be regarding their own biases — they will tell you if they can’t be fair and can’t decide the case based solely on the evidence, effectively removing themselves for cause. I always thought it was interesting that, in my case anyway, these disqualification motions — which were directed not only at prospective jurors but at our judge, who was Jewish — were made by defense lawyers who happened to be Jewish. There is, of course, no more reason to conclude that a Jewish judge or juror could not sit fairly on a case involving Jew-hating terrorists than there is to presume that a Jewish lawyer should be excluded from representing a Jew-hating defendant because the attorney-client relationship might be compromised to a degree that frustrates the constitutional right to counsel.

In any event, the motion will be denied, and, if the defendant is convicted, the matter won’t even be raised on appeal because it is frivolous.

Most Popular


Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his editor, I’m going to have to keep this short. I’ve spent most of every day this week in a studio recording the audiobook version of my dead-tree/pixel ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More

Billy Graham: Neither Prophet nor Theologian

Asked in 1972 if he believed in miracles, Billy Graham answered: Yes, Jesus performed some and there are many "miracles around us today, including television and airplanes." Graham was no theologian. Neither was he a prophet. Jesus said "a prophet hath no honor in his own country." Prophets take adversarial ... Read More