How the Courts around the Country are Institutionally Racist
These court cases are all separate occasions that represent that there is institutional racism in the United States. Shown within these 3 court cases are controversial situations that are still part of a modern day America and are still problems within the country even though it isn't exactly highlighted in the media.
Florida Woman Imprisoned for "Warning Shot"
The conviction of Marissa Alexander, who is African-American, sparked outrage and cries of a racial double standard in light of the exoneration of George Zimmerman, for the death of Trayvon Martin.
Alexander unsuccessfully tried to invoke Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law as the same state's attorney office and prosecution team from Duval County who unsuccessfully worked to put Zimmerman behind bars told the court that she did not act in self-defense.
Alexander was granted a new trial in September after an appellate judge ruled that jury instructions handed down during her trial were wrong. The instructions from her original trial included one that said Alexander had to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she was acting in self-defense, and that self-defense only applied if the victim suffered an injury, which her husband had not.
In a statement the Duval County state attorney office wrote, "The SAO will continue to seek justice for our two child victims and their father who were endangered by the shot the defendant fired at them."
She claimed that he broke through a bathroom door that she had locked and grabbed her by the neck. She said she tried to push past him but he shoved her into the door, sparking a struggle that felt as if it went on for an "eternity."
Afterward, she claimed that she ran to the garage and tried to leave but was unable to open the garage door, so she retrieved a gun, which under Florida law she legally owned.
Once inside, she claimed, her husband saw the gun and charged at her "in a rage" saying, "Bitch, I'll kill you." She said she raised the gun and fired a warning shot into the air because it was the "lesser of two evils."
The jury rejected Alexander's self-defense claim.
Prosecutors argued that Alexander, who had not been living in the home for two months leading up to the shooting, provoked the incident, and that there was no proof the garage door was broken, Alexander's rationale for not leaving the altercation.
Duval County states attorney Angela Corey offered her a three-year plea deal in her first trial, but that was rejected.
Alexander unsuccessfully tried to invoke Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law as the same state's attorney office and prosecution team from Duval County who unsuccessfully worked to put Zimmerman behind bars told the court that she did not act in self-defense.
Alexander was granted a new trial in September after an appellate judge ruled that jury instructions handed down during her trial were wrong. The instructions from her original trial included one that said Alexander had to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she was acting in self-defense, and that self-defense only applied if the victim suffered an injury, which her husband had not.
In a statement the Duval County state attorney office wrote, "The SAO will continue to seek justice for our two child victims and their father who were endangered by the shot the defendant fired at them."
She claimed that he broke through a bathroom door that she had locked and grabbed her by the neck. She said she tried to push past him but he shoved her into the door, sparking a struggle that felt as if it went on for an "eternity."
Afterward, she claimed that she ran to the garage and tried to leave but was unable to open the garage door, so she retrieved a gun, which under Florida law she legally owned.
Once inside, she claimed, her husband saw the gun and charged at her "in a rage" saying, "Bitch, I'll kill you." She said she raised the gun and fired a warning shot into the air because it was the "lesser of two evils."
The jury rejected Alexander's self-defense claim.
Prosecutors argued that Alexander, who had not been living in the home for two months leading up to the shooting, provoked the incident, and that there was no proof the garage door was broken, Alexander's rationale for not leaving the altercation.
Duval County states attorney Angela Corey offered her a three-year plea deal in her first trial, but that was rejected.
Cheryl Hopwood vs. State of Texas
Cheryl J. Hopwood filed a federal lawsuit against the University on September 29, 1992 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Hopwood was a white female was denied admission to the law school despite being better qualified than many admitted minority candidates. Originally, Hopwood's co-plaintiff was Stephanie C. Haynes, but Haynes was dismissed from the suit on February 11, 1993. Three white males, Douglas Carvell, Kenneth Elliott, and David Rogers, joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs and claimed a similar argument to Hopwood’s. All had better combined LSAT and grade scores than 36 of the 43 Latinos admitted, and 16 of the 18 black students admitted. The case was lead by United States District Judge Sam Sparks.
After an eight-day bench trial in May 1994, Judge Sparks issued his ruling on August 19, 1994. He determined that the University could continue to use racial preferences which was an issue in the litigation. In his ruling, he noted that while it was "regrettable that affirmative action programs are still needed in our society," they were still "a necessity" until society could overcome its legacy of institutional racism. The four plaintiffs decided to appeal the case and took it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
About two years after the original trial, on March 18, 1996, the Fifth Circuit stated its opinion on the case, which was written by Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith. The court held that "the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit in order to achieve a diverse student body, to combat the perceived effects of a hostile environment at the law school, to alleviate the law school's poor reputation in the minority community, or to eliminate any present effects of past discrimination by actors other than the law school." Judge Jacques Weiner concurred in the judgment. Rehearing was denied on April 4, 1996.
After an eight-day bench trial in May 1994, Judge Sparks issued his ruling on August 19, 1994. He determined that the University could continue to use racial preferences which was an issue in the litigation. In his ruling, he noted that while it was "regrettable that affirmative action programs are still needed in our society," they were still "a necessity" until society could overcome its legacy of institutional racism. The four plaintiffs decided to appeal the case and took it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
About two years after the original trial, on March 18, 1996, the Fifth Circuit stated its opinion on the case, which was written by Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith. The court held that "the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit in order to achieve a diverse student body, to combat the perceived effects of a hostile environment at the law school, to alleviate the law school's poor reputation in the minority community, or to eliminate any present effects of past discrimination by actors other than the law school." Judge Jacques Weiner concurred in the judgment. Rehearing was denied on April 4, 1996.
Death Penalty (Institutional Racism)
The death penalty was reinstated in 1976, David C. Baldus, along with two colleagues, published a study examining more than 2,000 homicides that took place in Georgia beginning in 1972. They found that black defendants were 1.7 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants and that murderers of white victims were 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks.
The study David Baldus did on the death penalty, ended up being the centerpiece of the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in McCleskey v. Kemp. That case involved a black man, Warren McCleskey, who was sentenced to die for murdering a white Atlanta police officer. Mr. McCleskey argued that the Baldus study established that his death sentence was tainted by racial bias. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that general patterns of discrimination do not prove that racial discrimination operated in particular cases.
In 2008, the district attorney of Harris County, Chuck Rosenthal, resigned after news emerged that he had sent and received racist e-mails. His office had sought the death penalty in 25 cases; his successor has sought it in 7. Of the total 32 cases, 29 involve a nonwhite defendant.
Since 1976, Texas has carried out 470 executions (well more than a third of the national total of 1,257).
The study David Baldus did on the death penalty, ended up being the centerpiece of the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in McCleskey v. Kemp. That case involved a black man, Warren McCleskey, who was sentenced to die for murdering a white Atlanta police officer. Mr. McCleskey argued that the Baldus study established that his death sentence was tainted by racial bias. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that general patterns of discrimination do not prove that racial discrimination operated in particular cases.
In 2008, the district attorney of Harris County, Chuck Rosenthal, resigned after news emerged that he had sent and received racist e-mails. His office had sought the death penalty in 25 cases; his successor has sought it in 7. Of the total 32 cases, 29 involve a nonwhite defendant.
Since 1976, Texas has carried out 470 executions (well more than a third of the national total of 1,257).