Foster v. Chatman
Late 1980s a young man named Timothy Tyrone Foster, age 18 black African-Americans was charged with the murder of a white elderly woman named Queen White. During the court-martial, the persecuting attorney decided to use his Peremptory Strikes to remove all four black jurors. The prosecutor violates the race-neutral acts, the members of the jury pool used extreme strategy against the race matching of the defendant. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky, it does not let to use an unconditional attack that defines as a racial discrimination, but they remove any burden they may affect the case so they can give him a fair trial by using legal racially biased jury selection method. At the end, Tyrone Foster was sentenced to the death penalty for the murder he convicted by all the white jury. Yet, the Supreme Court did not and fails to offer criteria for race-neutral. Tyrone Foster did not get the …show more content…
The magistrates cannot be single-minded against the accused man or women and black or white. During a court-martial all prosecutor presents justice, so justice means to me is being punished for a crime that was committed. A prosecutor should not conduct a case against a defendant by using injustice acts. Timothy Tyrone Foster as an accused also has the right to be confronted with the witnesses that are against him as well as obtaining witnesses that are in his favor. Therefore, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, my decision would be that all trials need to follow the amendment rule of human right. As an expert on the criminal justice system, I will strive to see that every individual is punished for the crime that they have committed, by using the legitimate method. If I were Supreme Court Justice, I want to make certain that no individual was being punished for a crime without enough evidence to convince an assembly of people that he or she is
Late 1980s a young man named Timothy Tyrone Foster, age 18 black African-Americans was charged with the murder of a white elderly woman named Queen White. During the court-martial, the persecuting attorney decided to use his Peremptory Strikes to remove all four black jurors. The prosecutor violates the race-neutral acts, the members of the jury pool used extreme strategy against the race matching of the defendant. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky, it does not let to use an unconditional attack that defines as a racial discrimination, but they remove any burden they may affect the case so they can give him a fair trial by using legal racially biased jury selection method. At the end, Tyrone Foster was sentenced to the death penalty for the murder he convicted by all the white jury. Yet, the Supreme Court did not and fails to offer criteria for race-neutral. Tyrone Foster did not get the …show more content…
The magistrates cannot be single-minded against the accused man or women and black or white. During a court-martial all prosecutor presents justice, so justice means to me is being punished for a crime that was committed. A prosecutor should not conduct a case against a defendant by using injustice acts. Timothy Tyrone Foster as an accused also has the right to be confronted with the witnesses that are against him as well as obtaining witnesses that are in his favor. Therefore, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, my decision would be that all trials need to follow the amendment rule of human right. As an expert on the criminal justice system, I will strive to see that every individual is punished for the crime that they have committed, by using the legitimate method. If I were Supreme Court Justice, I want to make certain that no individual was being punished for a crime without enough evidence to convince an assembly of people that he or she is