Judge halts Missouri execution of black man sentenced by all white jury

M

missbishi

Well-Known Member
What an interesting headline this article has -
Judge halts Missouri execution of black man sentenced by all-white jury
Click to expand...

On further reading, it appears that the execution has been halted as the judge found the defendant, Andre Cole, to be mentally unsound and therefore incompetent to be executed. Cole was originally sentenced in 1998 for murdering another man during an argument about child support payments. Regardless of the fact that this man's life has been spared, it appears that there are accusations of racism abound. Have a read of the article and let us know what you think? Does the fact that the original jury were all white make any difference at all?

Judge halts Missouri execution of black man sentenced by all-white jury | US news | The Guardian
 
It sounds pretty cut and dried to me, at least from this story. The man broke into the ex-wife's home and killed a man, and tried to kill his ex-wife as well. Unless his lawyers, or this judge can prove that the killer was insane at the time of the murder, they probably can't win this. The color of the jurors shouldn't even factor into it, as they were approved before the case went to trial. Furthermore, either party can decide not to choose a juror for any reason. I don't think the justice system is going to let this one get away with murder and attempted murder.
 
Jury selection is a big factor here and if there had been at least one black person then that would remove the racial bias. It's strange how the three potential black jurors were removed, and why the defense didn't push for at least one.
 
I see where both Gabe and thegrey1 are coming from. First off, I would have thought a mixed colour jury would be be more ideal to remove any suspicion of bias along colour lines. But by the same token, I have no real problem with the jury being all white as long as there's no reason to believe that they had any racist tendencies. However, it's a bit weird that one black person was removed from the jury by virtue of being a divorcee, yet a white fellow juror in a similar situation was left in.

My other question as asked by thegrey1, would be; was Cole of sound mind at the time of the crime, or did he develop mental issues after he committed the crime? If it's the former, then I think it's only fair that he be tried and convicted on those grounds. He argues that he attacked the deceased in self defence and didn't actually bring the weapon with him. If this is indeed true, then I would conclude it wasn't pre-meditated and on that basis, he could then be tried for manslaughter. It's a bit convoluted, in my opinion.
 
What I never can get is why everything is about "race." Race this. Race that. All white. All black. All what. Play the race card. The race card all the time. Is this the first time there has been an all white jury in a criminal case where a black man was the defendant? The man committed murder and should be executed for robbing someone of his life. The verdict wouldn't have been different even if the jury was all black.
 
Here's the real question: Does racism negate the crime itself? That's what it seems like is being mulled around here. That I don't care for. If the crime has been committed & you are guilty of said crime the racism that could potentially be present doesn't affect that whatsoever. Seems like something a criminal will inevitably use to milk a death sentence/guilty verdict.
 
He was executed a few days ago and refused his last meal. Having read a little about the case, it appears his initial defense team was weak and the team used for the appeal were looking for any means to stall the execution. It highlights the necessity of good legal counsel if they are public defenders. Although there is no mention of him using a public defender as his crime was committed due to child support payments, one can assume he would have used one.
 
Then if he's paid what he owed that's OK. A life for a life. I've heard it said that public defenders if they don't like the person they are defending, for some reason, they'll ensure that the defendant is found guilty of . . . whatever crime they supposedly committed. In any case most of them won't do as a good job as an attorney who is working for ca$h that will be obtained from their client's pockets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top