The Passing of Laws Banning Black Books; and Why it is so Important to Teach and Encourage Reading in Children

During Slavery Laws were passed making it a crime to teach Black people to Read

Today Law have been passed s in many states limiting and banning black history from school curriculum banning certain Books and actual Authors of some books.

The system of “Challenge and Ban” of Books and Curriculum is a new scheme made up by people who do not respect the right to intellectual freedom of Black people and disrespect the Equal right for Black children to learn in educational environments that cultivate them by giving them Truth and Empowerment .

Six states Flo. Ga, Ms. Virgina, Kentucky and South Dakota have passed laws limiting

Curriculum

11 Other States passed laws in 2021 that restrict curriculum lesson related to race

and racism in public schools.

The legal standard of those opposing Black Authors and Content should not be “How you feel” and ” I feel uncomfortable” giving these white parents the right to challenge certain Black books as being objectionable. This creates the typical mob mentality which was the tool of the enslavers historically and now.

The standard should be whether the Books are truthful

These Book Banning Laws are vague and arbitrary and capricious and do not stand up to constitutional or literary scrutiny but are simply a tyrannical act by people exercising unjust power

IN ST. LOUIS AND FERGUSON POLICE HARRASS BLACK’S WITH TICKETS
By Pamela Muhammad

Black people in the St. Louis Metro including those living in Ferguson, Mo. have been the victims of an intricate traffic ticket scheme in which race is the factor. As early as 1878 a drawing of a man known as the Veiled Prophet was exhibited in St. Louis. The man in the picture is dressed like a Klansman brandishing a pistol in one hand and a rifle in the other. This historical St. Louis figure symbolizes the white mans intention to rule and patrol the City. In a City where the legal decision in the case of Dred Scott is a reminder that a Black man’s rights should not be respected by a white man, the subjugation of Black people is done among other ways by intense racial profiling by police with a purpose of ticketing and harassing them.

St. Louis is a city where many of todays’ youth have not been taught the truth of Black history in America and do not know why they as black people are disproportionately treated as a despised race in America. The youth see the perception that has been created in America and promoted thru negative stereotypes that attempt to label them as dumb, violent, criminals, poor, lazy and disrespectful. The protest arising out of St. Louis today shows the strength of these youth and that their anger is finally turning toward the source of their oppression. The truth is causing these youth to rise up and demand answers not found in the integrationist doctrine they have been educated on.

In St. Louis , including Ferguson our experience is one where Black people in general, especially Black fathers and brothers and uncles are systematically and disproportionately stopped, ticketed and arrested by over reaching and abusive police. The objective of this operation is to impose a reign of terror and force the Blacks to act in a manner acceptable to whites thru police actions of constant monitoring and subjugation of the will. Another objective is to feed the economy with the hard earned money of Blacks thru the assessment and collection of high fines in the justice system. Race is a motivating factor for these traffic stops and this behavior toward black is a badge and incident of Slavery done in violation of the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown why are we still hearing people make reference to genetics and biology as they draw comparisons to the alleged criminality of Black men. Statements such as these reflect the belief that has justified slavery in America, that Blacks are genetically inferior.

Cities like Ferguson Missouri are a microcosm of the macrocosm says the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. I believe the neglect of youth has allowed an enemy to shape these youth by poor education and encouraging access to drugs and other vices. These factors in my opinion have made it possible for the white justice system to oppress Black youth by use of allegations of petty offenses similar to the Black Codes, with the results being excessive fines and onerous conditions of probation.

In the St. Louis Metro area it is hard for people to drive across the 93 municipalities without getting a ticket, it can sometimes feel like walking a tight rope a thousand feet up for black youth. Youth driving while black are easy prey often profiled stopped, ticketed and many time arrested for outstanding failure to pay old tickets. These huge fines and difficult probations are cruel and unusual punishment and are as impossible to complete as the poll taxes, and literacy test of the Black Codes. To some it appears to be legalized extortion. A person’s court date many times requires them to stand in long lines for 3 -4 hours to pay fines or plead your case. The struggle to maintain respectability as law abiding citizens and to survive without further incident drives those victimized by this web of fines to successfully complete the punishment.

Some people due to poverty fail to pay and cannot keep up with these fines, and thus walk around with warrant on their head for failure to appear as fugitives. Average fines can range from $200.00 and up. Upon failing to pay these fines some youth may out of frustration begin to feel like the rebels they have been portrayed as. There are streets in St. Louis Metro you dare not drive or walk down. Police officers are so motivated to collect fines they have even examined parked cars running license plates and then will knock on residential doors to haul residents from their home to jails. Random check points where licenses are ran for warrants are routine. An arrest can result in you being picked up and transported from one jail to another in each municipality, where money is demanded in order to get a release. No credit is given for time served so it is like a debtor’s prison. I even saw an older lady be subjected to serial ticketing for allegedly failing to control her weeds

This harassment is reminiscent of the system of convict leasing where manufactured charges and petty offenses are used to justify the collection of high fines. Tactics are employed to inflame anger such as in cases where police are physical aggressive and abuse their authority, so as to provoke counter responses and then charge the victim with the crimes such as Assault on Police Officer or Resisting Arrest. Most egregious conduct is the outright domination and use of excessive force by police acting under the color of State law that we see in the killing of Michael Brown.

Anger has been building in this St. Louis area for a long time. The strong response shown by the youth is an exercise of their desire for Freedom. The knowledge that they are not alone gives them hope. Unity is on the uprise. Lets teach the youth the History!

Our community must examine our “fault’ in the causes of youth violence so as  to create solutions to this heartbreaking cycle. With a  “Willie Lynch” mentality we too often look at youth with disdain, and contempt, Often times we are so disconnected from them we condemn these children without properly assessing and addressing their social needs. This is the essence of neglect, which Webster’s defines as “disregard, over-look, leave unattended esp. through carelessness”.

I believe that the  black community’s  abuse and neglect against our children is a leading cause of youth violence.  In an article written by Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy, Mr. Milloy stated. “Here’s part of the problem; Juveniles, many of whom have been robbed themselves—ripped off by parents and schools and communities that couldn’t care less about them — have become hardened and increasingly violent”  While our indifference to our young is a clear fact of life,  and this indifference certainly is a root cause in many of   the “brutal killings”  being committed in our communities across this nation. Studies as early as the 1950’s  have reported both a trend toward an increase in child abuse, and an increase in violent crime, suggesting that victims of maltreatment would be more prone to violence writes Juvenile Judge, Michael A. Corriero in the book “Judging Children as Children”  (2006) “.

We in the community feel helpless  to stop this problem of  youth violence but we know all to well the problems facing these children such as, no father in the household, no regular school attendance, mother unemployed, on welfare; father in jail, living with grandmother,  children living in foster homes, too many classified as special education, abuse of marijuana or alcohol. These are some of the very same factors Judge Corriero notes that are commonly found in the contents of many probation reports. We can add to this list, lack of supervision, low self esteem, too much TV, poverty  and exposure to violence. With knowledge of the problems we can implement solutions.

In “The Complexity of the Rise of Juvenile Violence” written by David Muhammad, Mr. Muhammad states  how “  * (see below) Mean stares, accidental bumps, misinterpreted comments and looking at someone else’s girlfriend have lead to violent confrontations.”Unfortunately children are forced by the denial of  basic needs to use misguided means to gain respect.  It is often during those efforts to gain  this “Respect”  that we see incidents of violence by our youth playout in the type of scenarios depicted by the words of the Notorious Big in the song “Sky’s the Limit” ….

While N*** flirt, I’m sewing tigers on my shirt

and alligators.

Ya wanna see the inside, huh, I see you later

Here come the drama, oh that’s that N*** with the fake, blaow!

Why you punch me in my face, stay in ya place

Play ya position, here come my intutition.

Go in this N*** pocket

Rob him while his friends watchin

                         That hoes clockin, here comes respect

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan ask the question in “The Cause and Effect of a Violent Society”  Who are our youth now? Who will they be tomorrow if we cultivate them properly? Our youth are like putty, but putty is only valuable in the hands of the one that is going to shape it properly. As we are being shaped by our home, our churches, and our society, then all the shapers have to shape up.

It’s time for us to go to work and show respect  for these children by placing the problem of  youth violence on the top of our agenda in the black community.  We must now correct our behavior and “Accept the Responsibility” to provide all children with safe places for them to grow in our community; and with the support they need to become tomorrows leaders!

Pamela B. Muhammad

Editor’s Note (The article by David Muhammad “The Complexity of the Rise of Juvenile Violence” was originally previewed 3/28/2007 on blackelectorate.com )

Why Blacks Should Serve On Juries

“We the jury find the defendant, GUILTY!!!”

This is commonly known as the single word verdict.  Many an accused fears hearing this word because it carries consequences that are often life altering.  In some cases, the penalty can be as small as a fine, in instances such as a traffic violation, while in others, the penalty can be as severe as life imprisonment or worse – death.  Nonetheless, despite the penalty to follow, this single word changes lives.

Often we wonder how a jury makes its decisions.  Juries are often instructed to base decisions on facts, the law, and/or a combination of the two.  However, juries often base decisions on their own life experiences, and they use this resource when evaluating the facts and law that they have been presented with during a trial.

But who is this jury?  Are they peers?  Where do they come from?

The purpose of this article is to attempt to explain rather simply the jury selection process, and how it supposedly works toward justice for the accused.  It is hoped that after reading this article, the audience will be more informed of the process and inclined not to ignore that jury summons and be part of carving out justice and mercy where such is demanded in our community.

A Jury of One’s Peers

In a criminal setting, the 6^th Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed.[1]  The Constitution, however, guarantees a right only to an impartial jury, not to a jury composed of members of a particular race or gender.[2]

A jury is defined as, “a certain number of men and women selected and sworn to inquire of certain matters of fact and declare the truth upon evidence to be laid before them.  It is a body of persons temporarily selected from the citizens of the particular District, County, Parrish, Township, etc., and invested with power to present or indict a person for a public offense or to try a question of fact.”[3]

The very idea of a jury is a body … composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine; that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds.”[4]  Although not included in the 6^th Amendment, the phrase “jury of one’s peers” has been interpreted by courts to mean equal, i.e., the jury pool must include a cross section of the population of the community in terms of gender, race, and national origin.   However, the jury selection process must not exclude or intentionally narrow any particular group of people.  Although not the primary focus of this article, this jury concept also applies to civil trials, in that all litigants have a right to jury selection procedures that is free from state-sponsored group stereotypes rooted in, and reflective of, historical prejudice.[5]

More than a century ago, the United States Supreme Court decided that a State denies a Black defendant equal protection of the laws when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded.[6]   However, this does not mean that a Black defendant has a right to a Black jury, as the High Court has held, a defendant has “no right to a ‘petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race,”[7] Rather, the supposed objective of the jury selection process is to select an impartial jury who will be fair, listen to the facts of the case, and render a verdict based on the evidence presented.  And, although the Supreme Court emphasized that a defendant’s right to be tried by a jury of his peers is designed “to prevent oppression by the Government’s arbitrary exercise of power by prosecutor or judge”,[8] peer or equal does not mean equal in social, economic, class, race, or the ethnicity of the accused.  Rather, the jury selection process contemplates only that random persons from the community or city, such as Houston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, etc., or surrounding counties where the crime was alleged to have been committed will be considered peers and they will sit in judgment of the accused.  Simply put, it does not mean that if a Black man stands accused of a crime, other Black men from his socio-economic background with like experiences will sit in judgment of him.

Truly A Numbers Game

We have heard the term jury selection.  However, this is a misnomer – jurors are not selected, they are excluded!  The process varies depending on what State the case is tried in and if the case is a Federal or State matter.  However, this article will focus on matters, either State or Federal, where the attorneys question prospective jurors.  In these situations it generally works like this:

In any particular matter that is being tried to a jury, the clerk of the court assembles a list of potential jurors from voter registration cards, licensed drivers, etc.  The clerk then mails a jury summons informing the recipient that h/she has been called for jury duty and to appear in court on a particular day and time.  The potential jurors then sit in the jury assembly room for hours in some cases waiting to be called to a particular courtroom.  The jurors chosen for a particular court are often chosen at random and given a number from 1 to as many as 60 depending on what the judge of the particular court has requested.

During the jury exclusion process, the attorney representing the accused and the prosecuting attorney have the opportunity to question the jury panel on a wide variety of topics designed to ascertain the juror’s individual views and opinions on matters that may come up during trial to determine if a person is fit to be a juror for that particular case.  This is typically known as voir dire, which is a French term that means, “to speak the truth”,[9]  and is said to,  “provide a means of discovering actual or implied bias and a firmer basis upon which theparties may exercise peremptory challenges intelligently…and helps uncover factors that would dictate disqualification for cause.”[10]

Depending on responses to questions, jurors can be excused for “cause”, or they can be excused by either the defense counsel or prosecuting counsel for essentially no reason at all.  This is known as a peremptory excuse.  However, this reason for exclusion cannot be based on the juror’s race, ethnicity, national origin, or gender,[11] for jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors.

At the close of the questioning process, depending on whether the charge is a misdemeanor, in which case six jurors are seated, or a felony, in which twelve jurors are typically seated, both sides get the opportunity to excuse three or ten jurors from sitting on the jury.  Then, the next unchallenged jurors, ones seated in numerical order, are the ones that will comprise the jury.  Thus, if the first three jurors are excused by the defense counsel, and the next three are excused by the prosecuting attorney, the next persons as seated in numerical order are the persons who will be on the jury.  Thus, in felony matters, the attorneys will often focus attention and question the first 35 seated persons, and in misdemeanor matters, the attorneys will generally focus attention on the first 15 seated persons.

More…

The Peremptory Challenge

As stated, the exclusion of persons from the jury based on essentially no reason at all is known as a peremptory exclusion or strike.   The essential nature of the peremptory challenge is that it is one exercised without a reason stated, without inquiry, and without being subject to the court’s control.”[12]  Generally, prosecutors are entitled to exercise these challenges “for any reason at all, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome” of the case to be tried.[13]    However, the law forbids the prosecutor to excuse jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that Black jurors as a group will be unable to impartially consider the Government or State’s case against a Black defendant.[14]  Likewise, the law forbids prosecutors to excuse jurors solely on account of one’s gender, for gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality.[15]

It is believed that prosecutors often try to exclude Blacks from juries, especially when the accused is Black because they are trained and admonished that no Black citizen could be a satisfactory juror or fairly try a Black defendant, and this phenomenon is unfortunately true whether the prosecutor is white or Black.  This belief is based in part on an instruction book as used by the prosecutor’s office in Dallas County, Texas, that explicitly advised prosecutors that they are to conduct jury selection so as to eliminate “ ‘any member of a minority group.’, and an earlier treatise on jury selection circulated also in Dallas County, Texas, wherein the instruction was to not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated.”[16]    An earlier jury-selection treatise circulated in the same county similarly instructed prosecutors thusly: “Do not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated.”[17]   Although these writings surfaced in Dallas, Texas, it is opined that this was the training in most, if not all, of the courts in this country, and is still the prevailing thought today because, as Justice Marshall aptly stated, “a prosecutor’s own conscious or unconscious racism may still lead him easily to the conclusion that a prospective Black juror is “sullen,” or “distant,” a characterization that would not have come to his mind if a white juror had acted identically, and a judge’s own conscious or unconscious racism may lead him to accept such an explanation to justify exclusion as well supported.[18]  This prejudicial exercise of peremptory challenges is not limited to prosecuting attorneys, however, as defense counsel can often employ this exercise when circumstances so allow.

If so inclined, prosecutors may challenge a defense counsel’s use of peremptory excuses of jurors because they have standing, and indeed an obligation, to assert the rights of the jurors sought to be excluded,[19]for the potential for racial prejudice inheres in the defendant’s challenges as well.  However, if a prosecutor fails to challenge the defense counsel’s juror exclusions, this prejudicial exclusion goes unchecked.  Thus, take for example a situation where there is a white defendant on trial for committing a crime against a Black person.  The white defendant’s counsel may not want Black jurors from deciding his client’s fate, so he purposefully excludes Black jurors from sitting on the jury.  Now, if the prosecutor fails to challenge these exclusions, the white defendant could potentially be judged by an all white jury, and the jurors could, no doubt, use their life experiences and beliefs during deliberations.  These jurors could then decide not to convict based on an inherent belief and inclined view, as once held in this country by the Highest Court, that, “Blacks are regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior they have no rights which the white man is bound to respect.[20]  Thus, I am resolute in the statement that,  “peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits “those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate,”[21] whether prosecutor or defense counsel – Black or white.

 The Challenge For Cause

A challenge for “cause” is a challenge to the prospective juror’s qualification to sit on the jury either because s/he does not meet certain statutory requirements, or s/her has revealed a certain significant bias during questioning.

The excusal from service for “cause” can be based on a number of reasons including:  the inability to read and write the English language; inability, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, of rendering satisfactory jury service;[22]  having a charge for, or a conviction in a State or Federal court of record of a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year, and the person’s civil rights have not been restored;[23]  being under indictment for a felony or misdemeanor, i.e., currently charged with a crime; insanity;  a bias or prejudice in favor of or against the person accused; has made up his mind as to the innocence or guilt of the accused before trial commences; has a bias or prejudice on any phase of the law that either the prosecution or the accused may rely on; or has scruples against the imposition of any penalty, especially death, or may refuse to consider any area of punishment that the accused may be entitled to under the law.  This is where the problem most often lies with minorities and people of color.

Far too often, we have an opinion that only God sits in judgment of people, and to this there is no argument.  However, the system of jurisprudence we live under states that we are the ones who sit in judgment of the accused. Thus, when we give answers to questions about feelings toward various subjects as inquired of by counsel, such as, “I could not look past the fact that he had his pants hanging down”, or, “I could not get past the fact that he wore a hooded sweatshirt or played music too loud”, examples indicating a potential bias against the accused, or neglect the call to jury service altogether, we undoubtedly disqualify ourselves without even the slightest threat of further inquiry.  When this is done, we cannot complain that justice was not served when a verdict of guilt comes down against a person of color because justice in this system is most often decided by juries.

The Jurors’ Bill of Rights

Perhaps the most important aspect of jury service is for jurors to be empowered with what is called the Jurors’ Bill of Rights.  The Jurors’ Bill of Rights is an admonishment that a juror has the right to her own opinion, to inform the judge that she is being pressured to vote one way or another, and the right to think for oneself.  The understanding of the Jurors’ Bill of Rights is of critical importance because a juror should not abandon views and life’s experiences when evaluating evidence simply because fellow jurors apply a different life experience to the facts.  In other words, a juror should never go along just to get along, for to do so undermines the entire process and acts to invade the province of the individual juror.

At the conclusion of a jury trial, the judge gives an instruction to the jurors before they retire to deliberate.  The most common initial instruction typically goes like this:  “Your job is to decide the facts based on the evidence that you have heard and saw during the trial. The evidence includes the testimony of the witnesses and exhibits.  You must consider all of the evidence.  This does not mean that you must believe all of the evidence.  It is up to you, and only you, to decide whether the testimony of a witness was reliable, as well as how much weight to give to the testimony.  In deciding the facts of this case, you are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You will have to decide which witnesses to believe and which witnesses not to believe.  In determining whether to believe any witness and evidence, you should apply the same tests of accuracy and truthfulness which you apply in your everyday lives.”  Naturally, although not so stated, this typically means that a juror will commonly apply her/his own views and life experiences when evaluating evidence.

The judge will then instruct the jury on the law pertaining to the particular case, and instruct the jury to choose a foreperson.  The jury is then dismissed and retires to decide the case.  In all of the instructions given, however, often judges do not empower the jury of its Bill of Rights which is something that each juror should be acutely aware of during deliberations.

In instructing the jury, judges should further admonish the jury that,  “jurors should consider the views of others with the objective of reaching a verdict, but should not surrender their own honest beliefs in doing so.  Each juror must decide the case for her/himself, but only after discussion and impartial consideration of the case with fellow jurors.  Jurors are not advocates for one side or the other.  A Juror should not hesitate to re-examine her/his own views and to change her/his opinion if convinced s/he is wrong, but should not surrender an honest belief as to the weight and effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.”[24]    This jury admonishment dates back to the 1800s when a judge instructed a jury that, “while, undoubtedly, the verdict of the jury should represent the opinion of each individual juror, it by no means follows that opinions may not be changed by conference in the jury room. The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves. It certainly cannot be the law that each juror should not listen with deference to the arguments, and with a distrust of his own judgment, if he finds a large majority of the jury taking a different view of the case from what he does himself.  It cannot be that each juror should go to the jury room with a blind determination that the verdict shall represent his opinion of the case at that moment, or that he should close his ears to the arguments of men who are equally honest and intelligent as himself.”[25]  Although aptly stated, it is opined that each juror must still stand on firm ground when convinced of her/his opinion of the facts and not abandon that ground simply to reach a verdict.

Juries must understand that they are a collective body, but a juror is an individual person.  In this regard, a juror must not abandon her own beliefs if she is convinced of these beliefs regardless if her beliefs are contrary to the majority.  Thus, when presented with evaluating evidence and applying one’s own common sense and experience to a situation, one should be mindful and careful to not abandon those beliefs because the deliberative process, while comprising of discussions of others, is still based on an individual’s own experiences.  In other words, a juror should never subordinate her/his views to another especially if she/he is convinced of these views, as this is where jurors are to use their own common sense and apply life’s experiences when evaluating the facts presented.

As stated, judges should admonish the jury of the Bill of Rights prior to its deliberations.  However, if a judge fails to so admonish the jury, it is counsel’s ultimate responsibility to empower them with these rights and to ensure that each have a clear understanding because the responsibility jurors undertake at this stage is critical.  Thus, if a judge remains silent on this point, counsel’s voice should sound loud and clear.

 Close

In 1880, the United States Supreme Court invalidated a state statute providing that Black citizens could not serve as jurors.[26]  Thus, since that time, Blacks have been able to serve as jurors.  However, all too often we want to get out of jury duty by rationalizing that we are too busy, we do not have time, we will lose our job, or any other reason that we can conjure up to get out of jury duty.  When this is done, the fate of loved ones, friends, and persons whom we have grown an affection and appreciation for is more often left up to people who do not have our best interests at heart.  This fate is left up to persons who are not our peers – persons who do not look like us, are not from the same neighborhood, do not live next door to us, and who do not share our life’s experiences.  These people typically have their own agenda, and do not have an ear bent toward justice or mercy by our way.   We seem to rationalize reasons for not wanting to serve on juries up until the point when it is a loved one of ours who is accused and stands in need of this “jury of peers”.  Additionally, if we are not successful in dodging the jury summons and get to the courthouse, we talk our way off the jury and then complain of an unjust verdict.  We sometimes make voluntary statements that disqualify us for cause.   Thus, as a friend once told me about our people and jury service, if we are indeed desirous of sitting on a jury to attempt to exact justice or mercy, sometimes silence is best!  This is not to say that simply showing up for jury service will guarantee our presence on the jury.  Rather, as has been shown, there are a sundry of reasons why we may be excluded from service.  However, if we ignore the summons altogether, we then strain to complain when a verdict is rendered that we find to be unjust or not in agreement with.

The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad wrote in point number 2, under What the Muslims Want of the Muslim Program that,  “We want justice.  Equal justice under the law.  We want justice applied equally to all, regardless of creed or class or color.”[27]  Thus, in the context of jury service, it is opined that justice can only truly be served if we as a collective body decide that such service is not only a civic duty, but indeed a necessary obligation to our people.  Only we can truly dictate whether an accused will be tried by a jury of his peers if we as a collective body decide that jury service is worth our time.  As stated, there are a variety of mechanisms and tools used to keep Blacks and minorities off a jury, let us not give another reason for exclusion that remains unchallenged.

[1]U.S. Const. Amend  VI.

[2] Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990).

[3] Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Ed. (1990).

[4] Carter v. Jury Comm’n of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320, 330 (1970).

[5] Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991); and Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992).

[6] Strauder v. West Virginia, 10 Otto 303, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).

[7] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85 (1986), quoting Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 305 (1880).

[8] Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155, 156 – 157 (1968).

[9] Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Ed. (1990).

[10] Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 602 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment).

[11] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

[12] Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 220 (1965).

[13] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986).

[14] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986).

[15] J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 129 (1994).

[16] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 104 (1986) (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment), wherein Justice Marshall noted in note 3,  that an instruction book used by the prosecutor’s office in Dallas County, Texas, explicitly advised prosecutors that they conduct jury selection so as to eliminate “ ‘any member of a minority group.’ ” Van Dyke, at 152, quoting the Texas Observer, May 11, 1973, p. 9, col. 2.

[17] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 104 (1986), quoting the Dallas Morning News, Mar. 9, 1986, p. 29, col. 1.

[18] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 (1986) (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment).

[19] United States v. DeGross, 913 F.2d 1417 (9^th Cir. 1990).

[20] Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 406 (1856).

[21] Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559, 562 (1953).

[22] 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(4).

[23] 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(5); and United States v. Greene, 995 F.2d 793, 795 – 796 (8^th Cir. 1993).

[24] Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 234 – 235  (1988).

[25] Allen v. U.S. 164 U.S. 492, 501, 502 (1896).

[26] Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).

[27] Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman (1965).