I’ve often stated that I get insulted when prosecutors say that, when they have a black defendant, they want to weed black people off juries to avoid our going soft on them. In other words, they insinuate that white jurors are never biased and always make fair judgements in regards to black defendants.

54-year-0ld John White was recently convicted of second-degree manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old. White, who could receive up to 15 years in prison, claims he was defending his family and the person he shot, Daniel Cicciaro Jr, was part of a “lynch mob” that had formed outside of the White household to confront his son.

So, after 4 days of deliberation, the jury returned a guilty verdict but, now, one juror is speaking out:

Juror Francois Larche, who is white, said he and another juror changed their votes after enduring “a lot of psychological tactics” from fellow jurors during an unusual weekend session ordered by the judge over jurors’ protests.

“It was a huge burden to bear,” Larche, 46, told the New York Post in Monday’s editions. He added, “I took a lot of heat.”

…

Judge Barbara Kahn said the jury would have to return on Sunday if they didn’t reach a decision. Larche told the Post the judge told them a mistrial would burden the families and the next jury.

“I thought about my family and the families of the other jurors,” Larche said. “It was not worth it in the end.”

After reading this, I am left to ask if a jury saw a middle-aged white male who had shot a 17-year-old black male, who the former had said gathered with a “lynch mob” to attack the man’s son would they 1) even had to deliberate 4 days to let the man go or, to be fair, 2) at least not let their concerns about quickly wrapping up a case get in the way of fair and honest deliberations?

In either scenario, I would be inclined to say “no”.

Popularity: 20% [?]