Why This Was an Easy Result—Legally

The United States Supreme Court stood tall for the U.S. Constitution this week. They granted a new trial to a man who was convicted of murder and had been in jail for well over 20 years.

Legally, it was an easy decision. Why?

Because the actions of the prosecutor were a direct assault on our concept of a fair trial.

However emotionally, it was a very difficult decision. Again why?

Because the Supreme Court members knew that their decision could free a convicted murderer.

They also knew that retrying this man after more than 20 years would be extremely difficult for the prosecution.

Witnesses die, their memories fade, and evidence is often lost and discarded.

But they took an oath to follow the U.S. Constitution no matter what the result for an individual case.

And in that we should all be happy.

Because it preserves our liberties.

What was their basis for the reversal of the conviction?

The systematic exclusion of Blacks from sitting on the jury that heard the case.

The jury trial took place in Georgia which has never been known as a hotbed of constitutional protections.

But the real basis for the reversal was the court’s review of the notes made by the prosecutor during the jury selection.

Pittsburgh wrongful death, medical malpractice, car accident and criminal defense attorney Bernie Tully thinks it’s important to know that in selecting a jury, the attorneys in the case can strike certain people from the jury for ANY reason.

Any reason except one based upon race.

The defendant in the case is a black man.

The notes from the prosecutor clearly indicate that he had a bias against allowing ANY black individuals from sitting on that jury.

In fact his notes state under the category of absolutely do not let on the jury the names of all of the perspective black jurors.

In other words, the prosecutor struck every potential black juror from the panel.

He wanted an all-white jury selected and he got it.

Let’s see and all white jury in Georgia with a black man accused of murder. I wonder what the verdict will be?

That’s what got the Supreme Court to rule 7-1 in favor of granting this man a new trial.

Pittsburgh wrongful death, medical malpractice, car accident and criminal defense attorney Bernie Tully wants you to know that the US Supreme Court was Not saying this man was innocent of the crime.

In fact he undoubtedly is guilty.

But what the Supreme Court would not condone is him being railroaded by having the dice loaded against him.

In doing so, they were just affirming what the U.S. Constitution guarantees. That guarantee in America is the right to a fair trial.

Do you agree with the decision of the US Supreme Court?
Do you think that they should not be getting involved in state cases?

Ironically, the only dissenting vote on the entire Supreme Court in the case was that of Justice Thomas, a black man.

Thanks for reading.

Bernie the attorney.