Juror Says He’s Too Homophobic and Racist to Serve, Now Faces Prosecution

Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News, September 11, 2012

A British man who said his “extreme homophobic and racist views” should make him ineligible for jury duty now faces prosecution over the claim.

The Daily Echo reports that the man’s identity is being kept anonymous for now but that Judge Gary Burrell QC read the leader in open court. In the letter, the man writes:

“I strongly believe that it would be a serious injustice to the legal system to select me for jury service.

“I hold extreme prejudices against homosexuals and black/foreign people and couldn’t possibly be impartial if either appeared in court. Therefore it would not be in the court’s interest to have me a juror.”

{snip}

The man had been selected to serve on a jury in the case of a man on trial for assault and reckless driving. And while Burrell questioned the authenticity of the man’s claim, he nonetheless dismissed him from jury duty.

Though he escaped jury duty, the man could soon find himself on trial. {snip}

Under Britain’s Contempt of Courts Act, he could face prison time or a fine for failing to serve on jury duty.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • ncpride

    Well, this certainly shoots down that old adage….. ‘ Honesty is always the best policy’, huh?

  • He only did that to get out of jury duty.  I would pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian to get out of jury duty.

  • whiteyyyyy

    The judge dismissed him. Unless they lock him up for what he thinks, which would be interesting. I give him 10 out of 10 for originality. I’m guessing he’s not a college boy.

    •  I like that he was being honest!  Is honesty now a crime? 

      • loyalwhitebriton

        It is in this country, mate.

  • America First

    He should have done what the OJ Simpson jurors did: lie  to the judge and lawyers during voir dire, and then vote their prejudices.  I am not a big fan of the jury system.  It only works when those participating are honorable and intelligent people taking their oaths seriously.

  • Dean_Wormers_Hot_Wife

    If he’s ever allowed in a voting booth again, we know for sure his vote won’t be counted, and two homo votes and two Muslim votes will magically be entered into the totals just to “fight against lingering hate”.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    “I hold extreme prejudices against homosexuals and black/foreign people…”

    Lol! I like this bloke, and I haven’t even met him.

    I’ll also remember to use this excuse the next time I’m called up for jury duty; and believe me, the Judge would not question my authenticity.

  • IstvanIN

    Do they interview candidates for jury duty like they do in NJ?  If so he should have reported on jury pool day and just hemmed and haled when asked questions about his views on people not like him.

    • loyalwhitebriton

      British jury members are not interviewed/questioned/selected by defence & prosecution as they are in the US.
      When I was called up for jury service 12 years ago we had to fill in a questionnaire about our eligibility (mainly physical & mental). We were also told, in no uncertain terms, that we were not to talk about the case afterwards (which is, I believe, a right that US jurors have).

      • RisingReich

         You are correct.  While the trial is ongoing, the judge instructs the jurors at every recess that they are not to discuss the case with anyone, including themselves.

        After a verdict is rendered, the jury can talk to anyone they wish.

        • godzillabloggs

          Jurors must say nothing about what went on in the jury-room, even after a verdict has been delivered.

          • SLCain

            Is that actually in the law, or just a diktat issued by one of our black-robed masters?

          • godzillabloggs

            It must be the law because a breach may result in a charge of contempt of court.

      • godzillabloggs

        When I was part of a pool of potential jurors,  the 12 lucky winners were asked  by the judge if they were members of the BNP.  There weren’t any, but the defendant didn’t like the look of one candidate – as small, tough-looking, working-class white man.   He was was rejected.

        My name was too far down the list for me to be called.

        • loyalwhitebriton

          We didn’t get the BNP question, but it doesn’t surprise me that it goes on.
          I bet nobody is ever asked whether they are members of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

          • Carney3

            Right, or RESPECT.

        • Carney3

          Wow, I’m amazed they asked about the BNP.  Just outrageous.

          • godzillabloggs

            The defendant had taken part in serious rioting by blacks in South London.  

  • Heh.

    Back in the early ’90s a friend of mine avoded jury duty in a similar manner.  When asked by the judge if anyone had a reason they could not serve, he (falsely) stated that he was in the Klan and that he could not impartially judge the black defendant.   He was dismissed from the pool and never heard anything about it again.
     
    Of course this was 20 years ago in a small, mostly rural, Texas county, so he was able to get away with it.  The fellow in this case did it in the PC cesspool of today’s Britain, so of course he’s going to end up being punished.

    • Puggg

       I wouldn’t lie in a setting where you’re under oath.

  • Michael C. Scott

    If he doesn’t like homosexuals and nonwhites, I’m sure there are still cases he could sit.  Prosecuting him after the judge dismissed him from one case seems a bit far-fetched, but then nothing about Britain makes any sense these days.
     

    • loyalwhitebriton

      Makes even less sense to me, and I live here.
      Imagine digging a hole, filling it with faeces, then referring to said hole by the appropriate slang name – that’s Britain today.  

    • The__Bobster

      I had a buddy who told the judge that if the defendant’s name ended in a vowel, he’d instantly vote to convict. He did this to get off jury duty. The judge just assigned him to a case where the defendant was a WASP.

  • AmericanTaxPayerNoMore

    Honesty is not the best policy for those days are long gone.  One of the best ways to get back at these alien invaders and our traitors is to sit on a Jury and always vote not guilty if the accused is one of your own and always guilty if they’re not.

    • The__Bobster

      Unlike a Watusi,  I won’t turn a violent criminal loose, even if we share the same race.

      • AmericanTaxPayerNoMore

        You’re being ridiculous.  You know damn well I was talking about people like Emma West.  Or, are you not being ridiculous and I really do have to spell everything out like this is a kindergarten class?

        Here, let me s-p-e-l-l it out for you since you still don’t know me after all this time of you and I posting on this website:

        Vote not guilty for one of your own AS IN, White People who are being charged with “hate” crimes.  

        I reckon I’d better c-l-a-r-i-f-y my s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g:

        Vote not guilty for one of your own when they’ve been charged for Free Speech.  Is that better?

        Stop it Bob.

        • AmericanTaxPayerNoMore

          I can’t believe you.  You should have just taken out the whole “damn” sentence.  Please give me a break.  “damn” isn’t so bad as to warrant moderation.

          • 5n4k33y3s

             Another defiant white woman who won’t respect the superior judgement of a white man…

      • 5n4k33y3s

         That’s what I’m saying. Where the crimes are serious, I won’t sink to the level of blind racial loyalty to a criminal scum. I don’t want scum to live among my people.

  • scott81

    Well being straight and wanting to stick with your own race is seen as bigoted now days, no surprise it’s the UK that wants to punish someone over it.

  • Ulick

    The thing is that a great many blacks really are so racist that they shouldn’t serve on juries. 

    • anonymous_amren

       I would go so far as to say that all black people are so racist they shouldn’t serve on juries. Combine that with their other prejudices, low average IQ, lack of education, lack of respect for the process, sympathy towards crime, and selfish desire to get out of there and go home as quickly as possible, and letting any of them onto juries is completely insane. Plus, they aren’t our peers, which is half the point of a jury.

    • AmericanTaxPayerNoMore

      Lincoln was against blacks serving in any capacity.  He may have used them in order to win that War but he wasn’t a liberator like he’s made out to be.

  • RisingReich

    I don’t get this – if he was dismissed, regardless of why or what the judge was thinking, that’s the end of it.

    • One would think so, and in a sane society that would be the end of it.  But this is the country that used to be the UK, were thought is a crime.

  • JohnEngelman

    Once I was questioned for jury duty. Four policemen were being tried for use of excessive force against several Hispanics. I said that once two policemen had beaten me up, but it must have been a case of mistaken identity, that did not prejudice me against the police. I was dropped from the jury.
                                                           
    Another time the judge asked me if I had ever been the victim of crime. I did not mention the police, but I did mention several ghetto thugs. Again I was dropped. 

  • IKantunderstand

    You know, I used to be such an honest, upright, fairminded American. No more! I completely believe in jury nullification if the defendant is White (I do have some morals left, and this would of course depend on the crime but…..Whites defending themselves against blacks, no matter the circumstances:  Jury Nullification!!!!!!!!!!

    • 5n4k33y3s

      No, whites have no reason to sink to the level of the black who think like this. Petty crime, I’m not very concerned with, but violent criminals of heinous crimes should suffer, no matter their race.

  • scott81

    You shouldn’t try and get out of jury duty, otherwise your spot will be replaced by a non-white or liberal white who will do there best to vote not guilty to help the perpetrator get off. We can’t complain about the legal system if we refuse to be involved. Just keep your views to yourself if you serve, it’s not anyones business.

    • refocus

      Most of the action in court is the civil trial. 

      Whites killing whites for money.

      Lying cheating stealing…. you cannot believe it.

      What is a lawsuit? 

      A lawsuit is a premeditated multiple felony crime committed by two lawyers and a judge against an honest working man. Their lies carry the weight of concrete facts in the eyes and mind of the law.  These actions  and are backed up by the full police and military power of the state.  

      Since the honest working man has done nothing wrong, that is nothing actionable, the intention of the crime partners is to cause the targeted individual such a conundrum that he commits suicide. 

      The crime partners bet that the grieving wife will throw the contested assets on the floor and walk away brokenhearted.  The lawyers will then divide up the spoils. 

      The lawyer became a lawyer and the judge became a judge to make money for themselves.  They could not possibly care any less about  you.  In fact, deep analysis would show that they hate your guts.

      The lawyers joke goes like this:  You are the one with the money.  And you are being raped, lay back and enjoy it.   Ha ha ha its so funny.

      The jury?  All, each and every one on it, is selected on the basis of: lack of income, lack of business experience, lack of property ownership, whether or not they are being proscribed psychotropic drugs which is preferred, and the miserable condition of their abode.

      The plaintiff’s lawyer’s closing statement is over the top.  Nothing like it has ever been shown on TV or in any movie.  Probably no person reading this has seen it.  And no person reading this can believe it as I describe it. The plaintiff’s lawyer actually channels Satan, who jumps up and down screaming at the top of his lungs. 

      He curses you in front of the jury,  compares you to murderers and robbers for one hour. 

      The last thing he tells the jury is that you grabbed your poor old mother by the hair and stuck a loaded gun into her mouth and down into her throat threatening to kill her in order to force her to sign the deed. His eyes are bugged out and his face a contortion of extreme hatred and his saliva flies about… his body is shaking with anger and rage.

      Then with a great flourish he recovers and coolly remarks that *you have all seen those criminals on Americas Most Wanted and wished that you could do something about it*.  Now channeling Satan again, *There he is ! There he is!  Do the right thing and take it away take it away.*  

      And the jury of morons strips you of everything you own and worked for all your life.

  • .

    I suspect that man is less racist against blacks and foreigners than most of them are against him.

    • 5n4k33y3s

       The PC police are both racist and hypocritical.

  • I’m a bit disappointed in a few of you.   You know who you are;  I won’t call you out by name.  And by “a few of you,” I mean those of you who are glorifying ditching jury service.

    • anonymous_amren

      I agree with Question Diversity. Where has our sense of duty gone? Where are all the men of the North that we read about?

      •  There’s a reason the average person can be a juror.  It is to protect criminal defendants from potentially vengeful witch hunts on the part of prosecutors and judges.  When and while one is a juror, one has more power than even the Supreme Court while one is serving on a jury.  I would never lie to get on a jury, but I would never try to lie or squirm to get off of a jury.

    • AmericanTaxPayerNoMore

      I will not take back my post nor apologize for my stand on this.

      Non-whites are vengeful against any whiff of White and this includes people with Half White Blood even when they look non-white.  I speak of Zimmerman here.

      I feel White People need to say whatever it takes to ensure themselves a spot on a Jury.  You don’t need to go against Law in order to cast your Guilty or Not Guilty Vote but you should make sure you have the opportunity to make sure that that ‘hate whitey’ guilty vote is not rendered.

      • 5n4k33y3s

        I wish I could un-like this comment. I hadn’t read your prior comment when I “liked” it.

    • SLCain

      Voir Dire has become a corrupt and dishonest sham.  People who are victims of crime, or even relatives of victims of crime can be – and are – excluded from jury duty.  Anybody who has any kind of marker for systematic, analytical thought (being an engineer, for example) will likely get bumped from a jury.  Defence attorneys don’t want jurors who think, they want jurors who feel.  Prosecutors and judges don’t want jurors who think, they want jurors who obey orders.

  • fabius

    Britian used to proudly boast that  it was the freest country on Earth. Now, you are free unless you have the wrong kind of thoughts–then, you must be punished.

    • 5n4k33y3s

      Yep. 

  • JohnEngelman

    The legal principle is that one is innocent until proven guilty. Nevertheless, I believe that if a case comes to court the defendant is probably guilty. If in addition, the defendant has at least one felony conviction I think he is almost certainly guilty of something, if not this crime, then probably something else that he was not arrested for. 

  • Shawn_thefemale

    Dear hubby told the judge the same thing when he was up for jury duty selection in a case that involved two black males – along with the statement, ‘Everyone in this courtroom is predjudiced – it’s human nature. Well, you asked for the truth.”  He was dismissed, collected his money and left to go back to work.

  • Michael C. Scott

    The last time I was called for jury duty I showed up and told the gal at the registration counter that I might not be eligible, as I was a convicted federal felon and still on probation.  She told me it didn’t matter.

    I didn’t care, either.  I had brought a book, and I sat in their big waiting room and read for three hours or so before being called back to the counter and sent home with a check.  I wasn’t working at the time, so I didn’t mind a bit.  I was actually disappointed, because jury duty would have been quite interesting, and I was intrigued at the idea of finding out what police and prosecutors are willing to call “evidence” when they can’t terrorize a defendant into pleading guilty.

  • godzillabloggs

    Why Wiltshire?

    It took place in Hampshire, which is right next to Wiltshire.

  • AmericanTaxPayerNoMore

    DEAR 5N4K33Y3S,

    You didn’t read my post.  I said lie if need be in order to ensure yourself a spot but do not break the Law when rendering the Verdict.

    You must not be familiar with OJ Simpson.  He was clearly guilty yet they let him walk and you know who “they” are don’t you?  I understand your point and even agree but we’re not in America anymore Dorothy.  I just happen to believe that we can’t afford to allow our Juries to be filled with people who either, aren’t that bright or who have chips on their shoulders.

    By the way, when it comes to Real Guilt or Innocence, check out the Innocence Project.  For me, it’s about two but equal things and they are; the person’s lost life being locked up for something they didn’t do and of course, the fact that while an Innocent Person is locked up, a criminal is running around free save for being in jail on an unrelated charge.