Veteran attorney Ron Freitas, who is running for the position of Attorney General in San Joaquin County, California, fired a black jury during his 2000 trial based on his race, according to federal judge findings . reviewed by HuffPost.
The case involved two men, Alonzo Deon Johnson and Daryl Thompson, who were convicted of shooting at an occupied vehicle. With gun and gang -related enhancements, they were sentenced to between 14 and 15 years in prison, respectively. After the trial, the two men appealed to federal court against the legitimacy of their incarceration, accusing Freitas of misconduct by black men on the jury.
In 2009, U.S. Magistrate Judge John Molds partially sided with the two men and found that Freitas fired an alleged jury because of his race, a type of prosecution misconduct known as “Betson violation. . ” . This discovery eventually led to the reversal of the beliefs of Johnson and Thompson.
Freitas will face progressive district attorney Tori Verber Salazar in the primary on June 7. Salazar became the title in 2020. When he left the California District Bar Association Because of Opposition to Criminal Reform and Correctional Measures By progressive high -profile prosecutors George Los Gascon of Los Angeles and Chesa Boudin of San Francisco.
Like many prosecutors implementing reforms, Salazar has too It was met with an internal reaction From some of the prosecutors in his office, including Freitas, who have Defendant He was given “get out of jail free” cards. Შi Last interviewFreitas said that, as district attorney, he will work to keep people in prison, extend their sentences by improving gangs and guns, and free individuals against attempts that have already been made. It rarely issues versions. Gang Strengthening is in California Used disproportionately Black and Latinex Defendants.
“Our judicial system is supposed to be color -blind, but if Ron Freitas is elected, he will overshadow all criminal proceedings involving people of color,” said Bobby Beavens, branch president of NAACP Stockton last week. .
On Tuesday, Salazar asked California Attorney General Rob Bonta to begin an investigation to see if Freitas did not comply with his ethical obligations by reporting Betson’s violations and if he could proceed with working as a prosecutor.
“I… I am concerned that many sentences may be tainted by his biases and subject to revocation, and potentially dangerous individuals may be released. “In fact, a member of the defense attorney recently filed a complaint with the attorneys and formally requested a review of the cases he or she was handling,” Salazar wrote.
Asked to comment on the constitutional violation by excluding a black jury, Freitas accused Beavens, the head of the local NAACP, of “playing with his favorite candidate” a few days before the election. Freitas cited lower court decisions that failed to find evidence of Betson’s violation, which was later overturned by the federal court. He contributed his work to the Lodi School Unified Council, “making every minority and every child unique”.
After the first phone call to this reporter, Freitas called and asked, “Who is George Ford?” A clear reference to a mistake was made in Stockton’s NAACP press release, which marked the second anniversary of George Floyd’s assassination. “It looks pretty careless,” Freitas said in a press release.
The term “Betson violation” came from a 1986 Supreme Court that ruled in Betson v. Kentucky found that the exclusion of jurors based on race or gender violated the Constitutional principle of equal protection.
In 2019 the Supreme Court The death sentence was reversed Kurt Flowers, a man who has always maintained his innocence, after discovering that the prosecutor had violated his constitutional rights by deliberately removing blacks from one of the jury trials.
Despite these high-profile cases, allegations of Batson’s misconduct are rarely substantiated in court. When selecting a jury, the defense and the prosecution are presented with a series of “mandatory challenges”: the opportunity to remove a potential jury from the group of candidates without giving a reason. Challenges without discrimination are not permitted, but because people rarely recognize the motives of discrimination, it is difficult to substantiate Betson’s statements. Additionally, judges may be reluctant to charge a prosecutor with whom they often cooperate in a discriminatory manner.
In the case of Johnson and Thompson, which were tried together, Freitas used a bitter challenge against three potential black jurors, resulting in non -blacks being part of the jury. After their appeals in state court expired, Johnson and Thompson filed for federal habeas corpus, a process in which a federal court reviews the legitimacy of a person’s incarceration.
Molds, a U.S. magistrate judge, conducted a hearing where he asked Freitas to explain why he did not include three potential black jurors. The molds also compared jurors to promising black jurors who were surprised to learn if Freitas had dissolved the grounds for excluding blacks after a more detailed examination.
Molds later discovered that Freitas had “legitimate and race neutral” reasons to challenge two potential black jurors, but his challenge to the third was based on race. Freitas’s concern for a third jury, known only as Mr. Jones, “was a reason to exclude him from the jury because of his race,” Molds wrote in the letter. A 31-page description of his findings.
Molds recommended that Johnson and Thompson be released from custody unless the state resumes trial immediately. The recommendations of the magistrate judges are communicated to the district judges, who generally follow the recommendation of the magistrate judge. But in this case, U.S. District Judge John Mendes I did not agree In Molds, he learned that Freitas had a “race neutral” basis for targeting Mr. Jones.
Johnson and Thompson filed an appeal and in 2011 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th District To be found That Mendes erred in rejecting Molds’s conclusion about Betson’s violation, without conducting a hearing of his own evidence, to see if Freitas’ claims were credible. Circle 9 rejected Mendes’ order and ordered Mendes to accept Mold’s recommendation or listen to new evidence. Mendes refused to conduct another hearing and Instead, Hebea was relieved. The state refused to try Johnson or Thompson again.
Betson argues that “there are a lot of denials in state courts across the country because it’s too hard to do and present such a challenge.” But it’s a bit different when it comes to federal habeas corpus, “said Federal Ombudsman David Porter, who represented Johnson. and Thompson in an interview.
“This is one of the benefits of the Federal Reserve: it’s the ability to review the decisions of local courts, which directly make decisions during the very fast process,” Porter said. “It’s a system check that’s done carefully.”
Source: Huffpost
