The Case To End Jury Exclusion in Manhattan

Image from Pexels

It’s well-known that Manhattan juries are often disproportionately comprise of white individuals – a factor that has led to higher conviction rates among Black and brown defendants, whether through trials or coerced guilty pleas when faced with potentially harsher sentences.

Judiciary Law 510 outlines the qualifications needed to serve as a juror in New York State. To be eligible, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and a resident of the county where they are summoned, be at least 18 years old, and possess the ability to understand and communicate in English. Additionally, they must not have any felony convictions, regardless of the offense or the time elapsed since the conviction.

Enacted during the same period as the notorious Rockefeller Drug Laws, Section 510 excludes many of the same New Yorkers who were disproportionately affected by those racially biased laws, specifically Black men, continuing a long history of excluding Black Americans from full societal engagement. Regrettably, despite reforms to the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 2009 and the restoration of voting rights to parolees in 2021, the prohibition against felons serving on juries persists. This is a representation of a broader issue of racially skewed law enforcement that isn’t just isolated to these laws.

This ongoing issue led the Community Service Society of New York (CSS) to support a class action lawsuit initiated by the New York Civil Liberties Union aimed at overturning the felony jury exclusion. Promoting complete civic and economic inclusion for all New Yorkers is a fundamental mission for CSS, which has been actively involved in registering hundreds of thousands of voters in low-income areas, correcting discriminatory voter purges, and assisting individuals with past convictions in regaining their civil rights, including the right to serve on juries. For individuals with felony records, there is a way to regain jury eligibility, which is to obtain a certificate of relief from disabilities or a certificate of good conduct, depending on the number of felony convictions. However, the application process is rigorous, as it requires an evaluation by a parole officer and approval by a Criminal Court judge.

The impact of this exclusion is significant as it not only prevents individuals with felony convictions from fully engaging in civic life but also results in a less diverse jury pools. Diverse juries are crucial as they are the face of public confidence in the justice system’s fairness and are more effective in evaluating evidence, understanding facts, and avoiding racial biases in their verdicts. Consequently, the continuation of the felony jury exclusion policy is likely to lead to more wrongful convictions of Black individuals who might otherwise be acquitted by a more representative jury.

For those who argue that individuals with felony convictions lack the necessary judgment or moral character to serve on a jury, it’s important to note that current regulations still permit jury service for people convicted of certain misdemeanors like jury tampering or professionals whose licenses have been revoked due to misconduct.

However, these individuals are typically screened out during the voir dire process. During jury selection, potential jurors must complete questionnaires under oath, revealing any past criminal convictions among other details. Through voir dire, lawyers from each side can then assess potential jurors, using their responses, including disclosures of any criminal convictions, to determine suitability for the jury. This detailed scrutiny, similar to measures used in other anti-discrimination frameworks to protect individuals with criminal records, allows for a specific evaluation of whether a person’s past felonies might affect their impartiality in a specific case. The process of voir dire challenges the premise that felony convictions should automatically disqualify someone from jury duty based on assumptions about their present character or fairness. Additionally, the CSS is not only involved in a class action to challenge this exclusion but is also advocating for legislative changes in Albany that would reinstate the right of individuals with felony records to serve on juries. The defendant in this lawsuit, Judge Milton Tingling, the New York County Clerk and Commissioner of Jurors, has openly criticized the practice of excluding those with felony convictions from jury duty. Nonetheless, he is obligated to enforce existing laws until they are either revised or struck down by judicial review.

Manhattan’s jury pools are notably unrepresentative, predominantly white, which regularly compromises the constitutional rights of Black and brown New Yorkers to a fair trial by a jury of their peers and equal treatment under the law. Whether through judicial declaration or legislative reform, it is imperative for all New Yorkers to support the abolishment of the felony jury exclusion to uphold the principles of justice and equality in the legal system.

31 thoughts on “The Case To End Jury Exclusion in Manhattan

  1. Excluding people with felony convictions from jury duty is just another way of keeping Black defendants from having a fair trial; 🙁

  2. It’s wild that you can get convicted of a non-violent drug offense decades ago and still be barred from jury duty today

    1. NY reformed the Rockefeller Drug Laws but left this ridiculous restriction in place. What’s the logic?

  3. Juries are supposed to be a cross-section of the community. How can we call it a fair trial when entire groups of people are excluded from serving?

    1. It’s not about whether you have a criminal record but more so about whether you can be impartial in the case at hand. That’s what voir dire is for.

  4. People with felony convictions can vote in NY, but they can’t serve on a jury? That makes no sense.

    1. my thought too with the fact that wealthy white defendants get juries that look like them but Black and Latino defendants don’t is a major flaw in our justice system

    1. Stats wise, Black people are more likely to be convicted and this article talks about the law restricting those who have been arrested from being able to serve on jury so it matches up

  5. “The exclusion of felons from juries is just another way mass incarceration continues to punish people long after they’ve served their time

  6. The exclusion of felons from juries is just another way mass incarceration continues to punish people long after they’ve served their ti

  7. This policy keeps low-income and minority communities underrepresented in the justice system. If we care about fair trials, we need to fix this

  8. Most states don’t have such extreme restrictions on jury duty. NY needs to catch up and stop this outdated practice

    1. Yep! Many states allow felons to serve on juries after their sentence is completed. NY is just behind on this issue.

  9. It’s not just about fairness to defendants. Diverse juries lead to better decisions, even research shows they deliberate more thoroughly and are less biased

    1. Great point. Jury diversity isn’t just a social justice issue, but it actually improves the quality of trials

  10. if we truly believe in rehabilitation, we should allow people with past convictions to fully participate in society, including jury service but they should be check that they are reformed

    1. that’s true…we can’t claim to have a fair justice system while systematically excluding Black and brown jurors.

      1. If you trust someone to rejoin society, work, pay taxes, and vote, then they should be allowed to serve on a jury

  11. The thing is many people are arrested for small crimes yet people act like prisons are full of violent criminals

    1. This is true because compared to the amount of people who have committed murder, the crime for stealing isn’t as severe and who knows what they’re going through. They could’ve been poor and struggling to live so they stole a candy bar

        1. that might be the statistic but we have to keep in mind that those who are in prison have a higher chance of already being in financial difficulties before they enter prison so when they leave, they still won’t have a home

  12. good point but to add on, they’re way more likely to be arrested for minor offenses so it’s overall a vicious cycle

  13. So many people are locked up simply because they couldn’t afford bail or pay fines so is it really their fault? Like I want to give them more time to figure things out

  14. Personally, if we really want to reduce crime, we should invest in mental health assistance because that will solve the root of the problem

  15. we’ve criminalized addiction instead of treating it like a public health issue so it’s no wonder that our prisons are overcrowded

    1. This is my thought because drug courts and rehab programs work. If we think about it, if we give them prison time and they come back out, they’ll still be addicted unless they get actual help. The cycle never ends

Comments are closed.