Image by Unsplash.
There’s no denying America’s Black community is at an impasse.
Black Americans are upset with every branch of our government for a plethora of reasons. Like others, I have, and continue to develop, personal qualms with the weaponization of our legal system throughout history.
Currently, my boiling “Black-owned” anger, and continuously-sinking disenfranchisement with the country stems from the double-standards that our government seems to institute in every situation related to a darker-colored individual, like myself.
Karmelo Anthony was found guilty of murder on Tuesday, June 9, under a Texas jury, and his sentence is 35 years. It’s alleged that he stabbed another student during a track-meet in self-defense. According to Anthony’s defense, the other student, who was white, tried to get him to leave his team’s tent, and even pushed him. However, the jury “of his peers” rejected the self-defense argument in less than three hours.
Despite the multitude of opinions circulating around this case, my problem is that this jury was intentionally manufactured to be white. Vengeance highly racialized this case – to the point where some were directly calling for a lynching.
Under the grounds of the Batson Challenge, Anthony should have been granted the jury of his peers and representative of his intersectional elements. The Batson Challenge is the act of objecting to the validity of a peremptory challenge, on grounds of bias in race, sex or another protected identity.
Although, the same systems to create Batson, ended up turning a blind eye and ignoring the blatant racist strikes to remove all those who would offer a lick of compassion to a teenager, who was aggravated. Three Black jurors were struck preemptively – leaving 12 non-Black members.
I am hurting from remembering the state-sanctioned assassination of Marcellus Williams – being pitted against white America to defend his innocence despite an underwhelming amount of evidence. I grieve for Trayvon Martin, as it feels like yesterday George Zimmerman had the benefit of the doubt from a jury for self-defense – even as Martin was unarmed.
As we sit with those instances of injustice, let us not forget Kyle Rittenhouse, the man who killed three protestors, allegedly had no malicious intent – and the jury believed him, and provided him a reprieve. But somehow Anthony’s case differs from Rittenhouse in the legal sense. The only logical sense I can make is that he was perceived as “too aggressive” in his self-defense claim, and similar to how history has treated the Black man in this country, the tears of white faces continued to rally the white supremacists into punishing Anthony into submission.
While I do not know any members of this jury personally, they are the reason for my incredulous pain at the moment. Anthony deserved a jury that reflected his community and life experiences. The other side claims that Anthony’s trial was fair, because there were minorities. I’m here to say that not all minorities have the best interests of their people at heart.
Cyrus Carmack-Belton’s death proved minority presence alone does not make up a council or one’s peers.
It’s still ironic how our courts recognized the need for diversity before half of the country, in the development of the Batson doctrine, but those same courts everywhere currently need more oversight than ever before. To ensure everyone is receiving the true due-process they’re entitled to, in this country, the Batson test needs stronger protections.
This means the courts need to implement more intentional practices to select juries that resemble the defendant’s identity in a way that the people can trust.
My solutions push further than the usually mentioned representative jury that captures population percentages.
Some of my solutions are, but are not limited to; lessening the percentage threshold for community-based juries and mandating juror accountability through community post-examination.
Both of these ideas are theoretical, but are necessary in bettering our justice system.
Lessening the percentage threshold for community-based juries does not immediately guarantee a guilty verdict. There are countless regulations and restrictions mandated to protect due process rights in the courtroom.
Currently, the percentage threshold sits at 10 percent, meaning that any population making up less than that in a community could be completely absent from a jury.
This needs to change, and shift jury selection from a random assortment that favors white individuals to an intentional selection of unbiased, diverse jurors who can also adopt unfamiliar perspectives. It should be common to see a non-white jury in cases where the defendant is a minority.
On the other note, no matter ethnicity, juror accountability needs to be a staple in courtroom politics.
We’ve seen how the jury can be monumental in making landmark decisions, like the case of the late O.J. Simpson. It’s important to remember the acquittal of Simpson is the exception, not the norm, and again comes from real racial patterns used to hold people-of-color down.
The ability to shape decisions, and not be questioned about the circumstances is not a privilege that should be granted. To instill more trust in the justice system, the system must work transparently.
Justice is best-served when it’s for the people, by the people. Even as Anthony’s attorneys look to appeal the conviction, I don’t feel confident in justice right now.
Today, I’m just wondering how long it’ll take for the next person to be put on display by our legal system. And, I just wait because I know if their skin is pale – the jury is more likely to make a decision that I won’t agree with.
Although, maybe I could be surprised by a Black man, looking around to see an all-Black jury, where the system is working in a fairer manner.
