Jury Bigots: Comparing Anti-Catholics in 1855 to Anti-Mexicans 2017

In an 1855 case before the California Supreme Court, the attorney for a criminal defendant, Nestor Reyes, was concerned about a prejudice among a secret hate group known as the “Know Nothings.” The lawyer proposed to ask a juror these questions: “1st. Are you not a member of a secret and mysterious order known as, and called, Know Nothings, which has imposed on you an oath or obligation, beside which, an oath, administered to you in a court of justice, if in conflict with that oath or obligation, would be by you disregarded? 2d. Are you a member of any secret association, political or otherwise, by your oaths or obligations to which, any prejudice exists in your mind against Catholic foreigners? 3d. Do you belong to any secret political society known as, and called by the people at large in the United States, Know Nothings? And if so, are you bound by an oath, or other obligation. not to give a prisoner of foreign birth, in a court of justice, a fair and impartial trial?”

The state supreme court said that he was entitled to ask these questions, noting: “The law contemplates that every juror who sits in a cause, shall have a mind free from all bias or prejudice of any kind, and if a juror is prejudiced in any manner, he is not a proper person to sit in the jury box.”

More than 150 years later, that same issue has arisen. In Pena-Rodrguez v. Colorado, a defense lawyer overheard that a juror expressed anti-Mexican bigotry while fellow jurors deliberated over a charge of sexual assault. The juror said, “I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.” On March 6^th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the usual presumption of jury secrecy can be overcome to find out if racial or ethnic prejudice entered into the conversation.

As an important side note, Justice Kennedy— generally in the conservative bloc— voted with four liberals and wrote the strongly worded anti-bias ruling.