There’s great news for all of you LGBT rights activists out there. On Tuesday, January 21, the Ninth Circuit’s Court of Appeals declared it was unlawful for individuals to be barred from jury duty on the basis of sexual orientation. The decision came after a gay man was not selected for a jury because of his sexuality. By barring this form of discrimination, the court’s decision is a step in the right direction in the battle for gay rights. Here are some facts about the case and the judge’s verdict.
The Selection
In 2011, a Ninth Circuit court was in the process of selecting jurors for an antitrust case. The dispute was between two pharmaceutical companies, and one of them, Abbott Laboratories, did not want a gay man to appear on the jury. The case concerned AIDS medication, a topic of interest to the LGBT community, and Abbott was worried that a gay juror might not decide in the company’s favor. The company’s lawyers peremptorily struck the man from the pool of potential jurors.
Laws and Precedent
Jury selectors are technically allowed to exclude a certain number of potential members without stating a reason. They can also strike a candidate if they feel he or she may be biased. For example, the creator of a water heater baldwinsville could benefit from the demise of a competing product, and might find the owner of that product guilty of manslaughter for just that reason.
However, there are a number of stipulations regarding the selection process. Historically, certain minorities were excluded from participation in a jury, but many of these biases have since been banned. In 1986, the Supreme Court declared it was unlawful to strike potential jurors based on the race in the case Batson vs. Kentucky. In the 1990s, it similarly banned selections from striking members because of gender. It makes sense that the same rights would also apply to homosexual citizens.
The Selectors’ Defense
Officially, the record states that the man in question was struck due to his sexuality. However, the selectors offered another explanation during the appeal. They claimed that the man would be biased because he worked as a computer technician and had friends who were lawyers. Judge Reinhardt declared this alternate explanation to be deeply flawed.
Not only was a computer technician unlikely to sway the views of the other jurors, but there were also actual lawyers selected for the jury. In any case, the official reason for the strike was homosexuality, which the judge deemed to be unlawfully discriminatory.
The Bigger Impact
Although many of us will use just about any excuse to get out of it, jury duty is a serious matter. After all, the members of the jury will decide the fate of the accused. If selection is not done in a fair and unbiased manner, the jury may consist of a prejudiced or selective group, which could lead to an unfair ruling. This would compromise the integrity of the entire judicial system of the United States.
Furthermore, to strike LGBT citizens from jury duty suggests they are unfit or do not deserve to participate in the judicial system.
The Future
Judge Reinhardt has issued a verdict, but the decision may not be final. In light of similar court cases, there’s a good chance the Supreme Court will also weigh in on whether or not it’s fair to bar homosexuals from jury duty. In 2005, the Court of Appeals in the Eighth Circuit decided the Batson vs. Kentucky ruling could not be extended to members of the LGBT community. Since two circuits have issued two different decisions on similar cases, it may be up to the Supreme Court to decide which judgment is constitutional.