A Black Defendant, a Racist Juror
A few days ago, a university baseball coach in Oklahoma casually used the word "nigger" in a pregame interview. Protesting criticism of his remarks, the coach explained that he only wanted to praise one of his outfielders, a "good black kid," by comparing him favorably to less-responsible "niggers." The coach was instantly placed on leave and later resigned for making what the university's president called "a terrible mistake."
The coach's remarks were hardly a life-and-death matter. The Supreme Court appeal of Gary Sterling, however, is. Sterling was sentenced to death in 1989 in Corsicana, a small east Texas town that has been no stranger to racial incidents, the latest being a Ku Klux Klan rally on the courthouse steps in the 1990s. After Sterling's murder trial, one of the 12 jurors who voted to send him to death row freely used the word "nigger" during a post-trial interview.
Displaying no concern over his language, the juror subsequently swore out a formal legal affidavit for Sterling's lawyers in which he described how the "niggers" in his neighborhood, when not "in jail" or "dealing crack," were usually to be found "hollering and cursing" at one another. He noted that "a couple of 'em shot each other last Juneteenth over a card game."
In open court, the juror affirmed that his affidavit reflected how he thought of blacks during Sterling's trial and admitted that he knew blacks "highly resented" the phrase he had used for them. Needless to say, he also affirmed that he was not a racist and had plenty of black friends.
In our legal system, it is primarily the role of the defense lawyer to spot and remove such biased jurors. In an appeal hearing, Sterling's trial defense lawyer, a white man and prominent local lawyer, was asked whether he had reason to suspect the juror had racist views. In a stunning admission, the lawyer acknowledged he had known of this juror's racist views long before the trial. Nevertheless, he never told his client or the court about the juror's racist views. Defending his decisions, the lawyer said he had thought the juror could be fair despite his prejudice. In addition, he said he had thought his own long acquaintance with the juror might even work to Sterling's advantage.
No one was happy with the juror's comments, of course. During Sterling's appeal, the federal district court called the documented evidence of the juror's noxious racism "at least highly disturbing." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit delicately substituted "n****r" for the word the juror actually used.
