The Supreme Court ordered Colorado to reconsider a guilty verdict because one juror involved in the trial had openly expressed “anti-Hispanic bias.”
Justices voted 5-3 on Monday to reverse and remand the decision back to the state’s court system.
“It must become the heritage of our Nation to rise above racial classifications that are so inconsistent with our commitment to the equal dignity of all persons,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
In 2007, Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual contact and harassment. After the trial, two jurors issued sworn statements, alleging that one of their colleagues had cast doubt on Pena-Rodriguez’s alibi, on account of his heritage.
According to the affidavits, their fellow juror had said he “believed the defendant was guilty because, in [his] experience as an ex-law enforcement officer, Mexican men had a bravado that caused them to believe they could do whatever they wanted with women.”
“I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want,” the former cop juror, identified only as H.C., also said.
Kennedy noted that H.C. additionally dismissed exculpatory testimony after accusing the witness of being “an illegal.”
“In fact, the witness testified during trial that he was a legal resident of the United States,” Kennedy noted, parenthetically.
The Court said that jury verdicts have generally been considered unimpeachable—Kennedy described this as a “centuries old” principle—but the majority said there was a need for an exemption in this case, citing the Equal Protection Clause, and precedent and legislation against the exclusion of jurors based on race.
“[T]he alleged statements by a juror were egregious and unmistakable in their reliance on racial bias,” Kennedy wrote. “Not only did juror H.C. deploy a dangerous racial stereotype to conclude petitioner was guilty and his alibi witness should not be believed, but he also encouraged other jurors to join him in convicting on that basis.”
The dissent was written by Clarence Thomas, and backed by Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. All three are firmly on the conservative wing of the Court.
Though Kennedy was a Reagan-appointee, he leans liberal on certain issues, like abortion access, and often casts deciding votes that dismay Republicans.
Thomas said that “no-impeachment” wasn’t an ironclad rule, but that exemptions should be left up to the states.
“In its attempt to stimulate a ‘thoughtful, rational dialogue’ on race relations….the Court today ends the political process and imposes a uniform, national rule,” Thomas wrote.
