Dumb Inner-City Jurors

CNN ought to be more careful in its choice of legal analysts. Or CNN’s legal analysts ought to be more careful with their choice of words.

One or the other; and perhaps both. 

But you know the people I’m talking about.

Those pontificating know-it-alls;--the people who always appear on the cable news shows commenting on some sensational criminal case they’re (1) not directly or indirectly involved in and (2) really don’t know anything about.

And how can they, since they are not the attorneys of record in the case they are called upon to comment on? In any event, since they often don’t know the particulars of the cases they are asked about, they often wind up criticizing either the defendant, the defendant’s legal team, the prosecutor and last, but not least the potential jurors.

And they do this, mind you, long before the case they’re commenting on, even comes to trial!

Which brings to mind the remarks made by Wendy Murphy, one of CNN’s “legal analysts” who appeared the other day on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.

During the segment, the issue came up of a possible change of venue in the Scott Peterson murder case. Miss Murphy immediately bristled and stated her opposition to a change of venue. Miss Murphy opined that Mr Peterson’s lawyer, Mark Garagos wants to move the trial to an inner city area. He wants to do this, she said, because Garagos wants his client to be tried in front of a “dumb” jury. Her theory being that the case is so complicated that inner-city jurors would simply throw up their hands and come out with an acquittal for Scott Peterson.

Inner-city jurors?

Actually, the phrase used by Miss Murphy was “some dumb inner-city jury.”

By "dumb" she means, I suppose, that inner city residents are not capable of evaluating the evidence and of being impartial jurors. Basically her statements are the equivalent of saying that an inner-city jury is not capable of rendering a fair verdict. Her statements are also the equivalent of saying African-Americans, many of whom live in and around inner-city areas, do not have the innate intelligence or sense of justice, to serve on a jury.

Besides being a slap in the face to America’s inner city jurors, what Miss Murphy is saying as a factual matter is utter nonsense.

Mark Garagos as Scott Peterson’s attorney is interested in getting a fair trial. He feels that for whatever reason a change of venue might accomplish this. That’s his call. That’s his right. I personally don’t know the specifics of what Mr Garagos is planning to do one way or the other.

But one thing is certain: no one needs CNN’s legal blowhards to go around telling everyone that inner-city residents are somehow not qualified to be jurors. The fact of the matter is, that most inner-city jurors are as interested in reaching a just verdict as jurors who live in the suburbs. Inner-city jurors are not "dumb." They know what they are doing. They do not rush to judgment. They follow the law and the facts as well as any juror. And they do listen to the judge’s instructions.

It is true that inner-city jurors do not always deliver verdicts prosecutors might want, but that merely shows their independence and determination to arrive at their own conclusions; qualities all good jurors should have.

They should be praised for these qualities, not ridiculed and condemned as Miss Murphy seems to have done. She owes the inner-city residents of America, either an explanation of her remarks, or an apology.

Or maybe both.

Punditwalla--