Will criminal charges be brought against the deputy?

Posted a while ago about the officers who tried to say they had a reasonable expectation of privacy because they disabled all the video cameras in their raid on a pot dispensary.

Well here is the video, complete with cops mocking customers, disabling the cameras and destroying the DVR, playing darts, and eating marijuana edibles

Story:

Exhaustive new study finds black jurors struck from juries 300% more than their white peers

Incredible infographic:

http://www.blackstrikes.com/

Glad to see someone with some visual acumen visualizing bland statistics

I'm not ready to acknowledge whether this is necessarily a problem or not, but if it is, what is the solution?

Lol wtf?

I've got to ask. What exactly is your criteria for acknowledging a problem?

"Was a white person harmed?" is my guess.

I am not a lawyer but my layman's view of jury selection is that it's probably a pretty fair process, with the defense and the prosecution on an equal footing. Over the course of trying countless cases, each side has probably trended toward being quite good at making jury selection decisions that maximizes it's respective chances of winning the trial. Clearly it seems to be a dominating strategy for the prosecution in the case of a black defendant to strike black jurors, same for the defense in the case of a white defendant or black victim. I guess you could consider it unfortunate that blacks don't statistically get to be jurors as often, but I can't immediately think of a fairer system than one in which each side gets to select the jury equally. Hence the question of "what is the solution?"

The obvious solution is a jury that more reflects the population. That they get more convictions when blacks are excluded from the juries should be a giant red flag to you.

It isn't as if the prosecution is the only party with license to select jurors.

I think you either have something like the current system, or a completely untouched random sample that gets to be the jury. If you want to argue for the latter, fine.

When Rand Paul supporters like Renton talk about how their libertarian principles are confirmed by their support of criminal justice reform, it always turns out that reform tends to be more along the "it'd be chill if I could order drugs on the internet" rather than any sort of reform that benefits people who are actually involved in the criminal justice system.

The prosecution systematically excluding from the jury pool members of the same minority police tend to arrest more often? Is that even a problem?

The prosecution can keep striking black jurors until the defense relents, and the defense can't really do much about this.

Since when did any problems ever arise from all white juries judging black men in the South tho???

Also, a solution is not a state of how things should be, it's a strategy that purports to lead to that state. Aside from plucking random census data so that you have exactly 3 black jurors in a 25% black district and then not allowing the counselors to screen out people with obvious biases, regardless of his/her race, I don't see a way to achieve your goal.

What if there was a black defendant in a 75% black district? In that case wouldn't the defense be able to strike most of the white jurors?

Well, again, the answer is ridiculously obvious. You stop striking jurors simply because they're black. Are you just playing ******ed for some trolling or is there another reason you are being this oblivious?

wat?

You're equating selecting with striking and then using the two interchangeably when convenient. It's strange.

An attorney's job is to win cases. He's going to make decisions that maximize his chances of winning the case. This is true whether the attorney represents the state or the defendant. If the highest expected value play for either of them is to strike someone because of his/her race, age, religion or whatever, then they're going to do it. Otherwise, what is the point of the jury selection process?

Is your solution just to make black jurors untouchable during the selection process?

Sorry for being unclear. Let's just assume every instance of "select" in my post was replaced by "strike."

That is not an accurate description of the job of a prosecutor.

how about just not let the lawyers know the race of the potential jurors. There's no reason they should need to physically see the people they're considering. Court stenographers can relay questions and answers.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I'm happy to be educated here. Does a prosecutor have a sworn duty to be ethical/fair in pursuit of his cases?

Do you need to be a lawyer to know the answer here? Like, the entire point is that prosecutors are often unethical and the justice system is unfair to blacks and your response is 'oh, is that not a good thing'??