ringbearer
Former Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2021
- Messages
- 639
- Reaction score
- 3,989
Thanks. That is heartbreaking, imho.
That headline is VERY misleading. After hearing argument, he found that what "appeared to be" discrmination, was NOT.
From the link in the OP. Bold by me:
The court heard arguments for more than two hours about why defense struck the potential jurors before Walmsley ultimately denied the state's motion and ruled there were valid reasons, beyond race, for why the jurors were dismissed.
"One of the challenges that I think counsel recognized in this case is the racial overtones in the case. ... This is sort of the continuation of a conversation that I think will continue for a long time, with respect to this case," the judge said, but added that in Georgia, "all the defense needs to do is provide that legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, reasonably specific and related reason," for why they struck a juror and he said the defense met that burden.