However, over at my buddy's anti-death penalty blog he points out that what is truly shocking thing about this case is that it wasn't a unanimous decision-- in spite of the fact that much of the blatant prejudice used in jury selection was actually written out in a handbook for training new Dallas County prosecutors. Here are just a few choice quotes:
"You are not looking for any member of a minority group which may subject him to oppression – they almost always empathize with the accused."Can anyone explain to me how this was a 6-3 decision? Or how Clarence Thomas wrote the dissenting opinion? (Check it out on pg. 54 of the opinion-- a PDF.) It boggles the mind.
"Look for physical afflictions. These people usually sympathize with the accused."
"I don't like women jurors because I can't trust them."
"Young women too often sympathize with the defendant; old women wearing too much makeup are usually unstable and therefore are bad State's jurors."
"Jewish veniremen generally make poor State's jurors. Jews have a history of oppression and generally empathize with the accused."