Supreme Court will take up case about juror's racial bias
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether jurors' claims of racially charged comments by another juror can overcome the need for secrecy in jury deliberations.
The justices will hear an appeal from a Hispanic man in Colorado who says he did not have a fair trial because a juror made offensive comments about Mexicans.
The remarks came to light when two other jurors told the defendant's lawyer about them. Courts rarely allow jurors to reveal what went on during their deliberations.
But defendant Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez argues that the comments were so bad they deprived him of his constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.
The high court will hear the case in the fall.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Congress of American Indians are among the groups backing Pena Rodriguez. They provided the justices with examples of other trials in which jurors uttered slurs or made derogatory remarks about Native American, African-American and Hispanic defendants.
Colorado tried to dissuade the court from taking up the case by arguing there was overwhelming evidence against Pena Rodriguez and that no juror suggested that the offensive comments affected or persuaded anyone else.
After a jury convicted Pena Rodriguez of unlawful sexual contact and harassment involving teenage sisters at a Denver-area horse race track, two jurors provided his lawyer with sworn statements claiming that a third juror made derogatory remarks about Mexican men before voting guilty.
"I think he did it because he's Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want," is one of several racially tinged statements attributed to the juror identified in court records by the initials H.C. In another comment, the juror is said to have cast doubt on an alibi provided by a Hispanic witness for Pena Rodriguez because the witness was "an illegal." The witness testified that he was in the country legally.
But three separate courts in Colorado said those statements could not be used to upend Pena Rodriguez's conviction because of a long-standing rule that prohibits jurors from testifying about what happens during deliberations. The rule, found in both federal and state law, is intended to promote the finality of verdicts and to shield jurors from outside influences.
The Supreme Court also has been unwilling to intrude on deliberations, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested in a footnote to her opinion in a 2014 case that "there may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged."
Based on Monday's order, the court will explore whether Pena Rodriguez's case qualifies.
The case is Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado, 15-606.
High court sides with sex offender in dispute over registry
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says a convicted sex offender did not have to update his status on the federal sex offender registry after moving to a foreign country.
The justices on Monday ruled unanimously in favor of Lester Nichols, a Kansas man who moved to the Philippines after his release from prison in 2012. Nichols moved without notifying authorities.
He was convicted of failing to update his sex-offender registration. A federal appeals court upheld his conviction.
Justice Samuel Alito said a straightforward reading of the law at the time did not require registry updates after moving out of the United States. He noted that Congress has since criminalized the failure of sex offenders to offer information about foreign travel.
Court upholds total population count in electoral districts
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a Texas law that counts everyone, not just eligible voters, in deciding how to draw electoral districts.
The justices turned back a challenge Monday that could have dramatically altered political district boundaries and disproportionately affected the nation's growing Latino population.
The court ruled that Texas' challenged state Senate districting map complied with the principle of "one person, one vote." That's the requirement that political districts be roughly equal in population.
The challengers said the districts had vastly different population counts when looking at eligible voters, in violation of the Constitution.
"Jurisdictions may design state and local legislative districts with equal total populations, we hold; they are not obliged to equalize voter populations," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, summarizing her opinion for the court.
Ginsburg said that "history, our decisions and settled practice in all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions point in the same direction."
Two rural Texas voters challenged the use of total population data in drawing state Senate districts because they say it inflates the voting power of city dwellers at their expense.
In Texas, and other states with large immigrant populations, urban districts include many more people who are too young, not citizens or otherwise ineligible to vote. Civil rights groups said forcing states to change their method of constructing districts would have damaged Latino political influence.
The court stopped short of saying that states must use total population. And it also did not rule on whether states are free to use a different measure, as Texas asked.
Ginsburg said the court was not resolving whether states may use voter population.
High court rejects challenge to Miss. campaign finance law
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal challenging the constitutionality of a Mississippi campaign finance law that requires reporting by people or groups spending at least $200 to support or oppose a ballot measure.
The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the law over claims it is too burdensome.
Five Mississippi residents sued in 2011, arguing that the law limited their free speech and association rights. They were backing an initiative that voters ultimately approved to limit the government's use of eminent domain to take private land. The group purchased posters, bought advertising in a local newspaper and distributed flyers to voters.
A federal judge ruled the $200 reporting threshold was too burdensome for smaller groups. But a federal appeals panel reversed that decision.
Justices reject Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo class-action appeals
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is turning down appeals by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. of multimillion-dollar class-action judgments.
The high court orders Monday follow last month's decision upholding a $5.8 million judgment against Tyson Foods Inc.
The appeals turned away by the justices raise similar issues relating to the use of statistical evidence in class actions.
Wells Fargo was appealing a $203 million judgment for charging customers too much in overdraft fees relating to debit-card purchases.
Wal-Mart was objecting to a judgment of more than $151 million in favor of employees who were forced to work through lunch breaks at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in Pennsylvania.
Published: Tue, Apr 05, 2016
