"You won't like me when I'm angry..."
Political correctness is now officially moving into places where it cannot be tolerated….like the courtroom.
In Brooklyn Federal Court, Juror No. 799, an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry, was up for jury duty in the death penalty trial of Bonanno crime boss Vincent Basciano. Asked to name three people she least admired on her jury questionaire, she wrote, “African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.” Elsewhere on the form she declared that all cops were lazy, and used their sirens to bypass traffic jams.
Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis read the questionaire, questioned the woman, and declared, “This is an outrage, and so are you!” After he dismissed her as a juror on the case, he announced that she was now, until further notice, on permanent jury duty until he let her off.
“She’s coming back today, Thursday and Friday – and until the future, when I am ready to dismiss her,” Garaufis said.
Just desserts for a racist?
Proper punishment for hate?
A lesson in citizenship for all?
No. This was outrageous abuse of power by a judge, and a slam dunk First Amendment violation. Her opinions are ugly, but there is nothing illegal about having ugly opinions, and government punishment based on a citizen’s opinion is a dangerous Constitutional breach. A judge can’t dictate how a potential juror thinks or what she believes. He can’t take vengeance on a woman who is hateful, either. She has a right to her hate.
This is what happens when shock and anger mutes the ethics alarms. A judge knows better than to do this kind of thing, or should. If offensive opinions aren’t safe from government punishment, including perpetual jury duty, then no opinions are safe.
You want rules? Fine. The New York Code of Judicial Conduct has several that would disapprove the judge’s actions here, but we really don’t need anything more than the very first rule, Canon I:
CANON 1 [§100.1]: A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A
judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of
conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary will be preserved.
Right. And using the power of a Federal judge to punish a juror for her personal beliefs demonstrates neither integrity nor honor, nor justice.
Let the juror go, Judge.
UPDATE: And so he did….suspiciously. The rest of the story here.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m a little unclear about this. Her dismissal for being racist wasn’t wrong, was it? It’s just putting her in Juror Limbo.
Dismissal isn’t punishment. Forced jury duty forever is.
My first thought when reading her responses was that she was trying to get out of jury duty, which really gets my goat.
But the judge shouldn’t have done that. It might have felt good, but judges aren’t supposed to go by what feels good, and it isn’t their jobs to give lessons on not being a bigot.
There was a similar story in Houston last year involving a federal judge, David Hittner, who I’ve known most of my life through the JCC and the naturalization ceremonies in town. He’s a nice enough guy, and while this story certainly made me guffaw, and the civically engaged part of me thought Hittner was providing a valuable service to society, I also felt a little dirty over the whole affair. Granted, this story does’t have to do with first amendment violations so much as it does a judge overstepping his bounds.
Doesn’t this smack (almost) of illegal incarceration? The judge is making this woman remain on jury duty FOR AS LONG AS HE LIKES, AND TO PROVE HIS POINT? Meantime, she can’t work, life her normal life, and is forced to allow this jerk to “punish” her for just as long as he thinks is appropriate? Keep her off the jury. Fine, but this is an abuse of power (even though he doesn’t actually have such power.
Is it his job to “prove his point,” or ensure that trials are conducted fairly, according to the law and codes of ethics?
Lots of judges are jerks, but this one is clearly egomaniacal, and should not be on the bench.
It is incidents like these that lend legitimacy to the extreme elements in society who claim that we live in a politically correct dictatorship and our rights have been taken away from us. From the KKK and skinheads to the militia movement, people are pointing at this incident and saying “See, we told you”. The sad thing is that they are right. The judge has disregarded this citizen’s rights, has exercised arbitrary and unchecked power, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
I think the judge was punishing her for obviously lying to get out of her civic duty, but it’s impossible to prove she was lying about her personal opinions.
Were I a defense counsel, I would toss her in either case — whether she’s dishonest or a bigot.
The judge should have put her under oath — if she persisted in her bigotry, then toss her. But perhaps it was already done; I don’t know the selection form. Are venire people required to swear to the truth of the form they fill out?
But you’re right — indefinite venire was the wrong way to handle it, just because he was pissed off.
I don’t know about the questionnaire. I doubt that it’s under oath.
There is nothing in the news report to indicate that she was trying to get kicked off the jury. The judge questioned her, and seemed to be annoyed at her statements, not the implied motivation for them.
Judges in ths US have WAY WAY WAY too much power and have VERY little oversight. This judge ought to be dismissed from his job immediately!!! He is a threat to justice and a menace to the public.
This is a prime example as to why we should have professional (paid) juries insetad of relying on ragtag random juries to administer justice.
Couldn’t you just have trial by judge alone rather than a jury if they were professionals?
You can always have trial by judge and waive a jury trial if you want. Having been on a jury, that’s what I would do if I had a strong case. If I was guilty or had a shaky case, I’d go with the jury every time. In civil cases, both parties have to waive the jury, and that’s fairly rare.