How Big of a Factor is Race in Jury Verdicts?
On Wednesday a Hinds County jury acquitted a native Indian store owner for the 2008 shooting death of an African-American man in Jackson. The defendant claimed self-defense in shooting the decedent after he stole beer from the defendant's convenience store. Here is a Clarion-Ledger article on the verdict.
Here are the racial dynamics from the trial:
- decedent: African-American
- defendant: native-Indian
- assistant district attorney: African-American (Kimalon Melton)
- defense attorney: white (Tom Fortner)
- judge: African-American (Judge Winston Kidd)
- jury: 11 African-Americans and 1 white
I believe that many people who over estimate the factor that race plays in jury trials would have expected a predominately African-American jury to convict a defendant of another race. But as pointed out by Jackson City Council President Frank Bluntson:
"People are just tired of crime," Jackson City Council President Frank Bluntson said of the jury's decision as he stood outside the Hinds County Courthouse.
By “people” Bluntson means everyone. Not just white people.
Whatever factor race played in this trial—if any—was trumped by the facts of the case and jurors' views about crime in Hinds County. I think it's fair to say that a large segment of the Hinds County population—black and white—reacts positively when they hear about a crime victim shooting the perpetrator. These feelings about crime trump any racial biases.
There are lawyers in Mississippi who believe that race is an overwhelming factor in jury verdicts. These lawyers believe that having a good African-American lawyer or expert witness in a trial with mostly African-American jurors is more important than the facts of the case.
I can't say race never plays any factor in jury verdicts in Mississippi. But I can say that many lawyers—mostly white lawyers who attended segregated schools and have spent little time around African Americans— completely over estimate the importance of racial factors in juror decision making.
Racial dynamics in Mississippi are complicated. Like many elements of trial practice, there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to the race factor in jury trials.
The C-L article certainly led one to believe that those critical of the shooting were trying to cast the jury's vote as a racial issue, and that a riot or two would not strike them as amiss.
Unless it was a hung jury with 11 blacks voting to convict, "color" me skeptical. Blacks in Jackson are victims of crime too.
Also goes to show just how good Tom Fortner is. Nothing against the guys in the PD office now, but Fortner is one of the best.
I'd be interested in knowing if there is any empirical evidence on this point. Or are you expressing your "feelings" on the issue? My anecdotal evidence obtained in over 120 civil jury trials in all parts of the state suggests that African-American jurors are far more generous in their verdicts and more plaintiff-oriented than other jurors, (with the exception of female school teachers)but I have no scientific evidence to support my "feelings".
It is been my experience on a national basis that a combination of income and racial homogeneity play a role in civil cases. That is, low-income jurors who are from the same area and of the same race (whether that is white, Hispanic or black)tend to view plaintiff's cases more favorably. I've seen that phenomena in person in places like South Texas, Central Alabama and Eastern Kentucky.
By contrast, a low-income jury that is not homogeneous is less favorable.
Thought provoking post Philip.
Perhaps we should let the highest appellate court in the land, the MSSC, decide whether race is a factor. Appeal a verdict for a black plaintiff, awarded by a mostly black jury, and observe its chances of being affirmed with that of a verdict for a white plaintiff - a verdict awarded by, let's say, a Madison or Rankin County jury.
Not to say it should make a difference [it will], but let's also pretend the verdict for the black plaintiff arises from a premises liability or med mal case*, and the verdict for the white plaintiff arises from a commercial or contractual dispute (or an alienation of affection case, based on recent case law history).
Now, which suit do you think has a better chance of being affirmed by the MSSC? Both, right? I mean, justice is truly blind...right? The color of the litigant, and of the jury, and of the trial judge, doesn't (and shouldn't) matter, right?
Right...
*P.S. Just kidding a/b the med mal. We all know that a med mal case has no chance of being affirmed by the current court, no matter the race of ANY involved parties.
*P.P.S. Addendum - for all the hate that alienation of affection cases get from various parties (including the Honorable Mr. Thomas), you'd think that med mal torts stood on shakier statutory grounds than alienation cases, given the recent history of the Supreme's rulings on such cases.