By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, North America and Oceania

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America — A growing number of U.S. Governors are refusing to admit Syrian refugees, citing security concerns highlighted by the terrorist attacks in Paris. Leading Republican presidential candidates called on President Barack Obama to suspend the plan to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees in the coming year.

The governors are responding to heightened concerns that terrorists might use the refugees as cover to sneak across borders.

As of Monday, the governors of the following states have either expressed hesitation or outright refusal to accept Syrian refugees within their borders: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

For example, Louisiana Governor and 2016 Republican Presidential Candidate Bobby Jindal declared over Twitter, “I just signed an Executive Order instructing state agencies to take all available steps to stop the relocation of Syrian refugees to LA.”

Chief among the concerns shared by these governors, and indeed many of those involved, including members of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, have revolved around the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of properly screening and vetting the Syrian refugees. Indeed, because of the Syrian conflict, many of these refugees have little or no documentation records.

Lavinia Limon, president and CEO of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigration, has said under the Refugee Act of 1980, governors cannot legally block refugees from settling in their communities.

Several governors acknowledged that they do not have the ability to stop the federal government from accepting and financing the resettlement of refugees to the United States. They too have sought reassurances that the process used to screen refugees is adequate and thorough.

As the list of states blocking refugees grows, the state of Delaware announced that it plans to accept refugees.

Governor Jack Markell said in a statement, “It is unfortunate that anyone would use the tragic events in Paris to send a message that we do not understand the plight of these refugees, ignoring the fact that the people we are talking about are fleeing the perpetrators of terror.”

Along with Delaware, governors from the following states have stated they will accept Syrian Refugees: Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.

According to the Obama administration, which has stated that it hopes to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees, more than 180 cities and towns have expressed willingness to accept refugees. The U.S. has resettled about 1,800 refugees from Syria so far in 2015, according to statistics compiled by the State Department.

Millions of Syrians have fled to neighboring Middle Eastern countries and Europe, and President Obama’s administration has pledged to accept about 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next 12 months. The U.S. State Department said the refugees would be spread across the country.

For more information, please see:

ABC News — Wary Governors Halt, Question Plan to Accept Syrian Refugees – 16 November 2015

CNN — Syrian refugees not welcome here, governors of 16 states say – 16 November 2015

Reuters — U.S. Republicans seek to shut door on Syrian refugees after Paris – 16 November 2015

Time — Governors Vow to Block Syrian Refugees After Paris Attacks – 16 November 2015

USA Today — After attacks in Paris, governors refuse to accept Syrian refugees – 16 November 2015

Washington Post — Governors rush to slam door on Syrian refugees – 16 November 2015

By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, North America and Oceania

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America — The United States Supreme Court is determining whether racism played a role when an all-white jury put a black teenager on death row for killing a white woman. The Supreme Court appeared troubled Monday by the actions of a Georgia prosecutor in disqualifying all the black prospective jurors from the death penalty trial of a black teenager who was accused of killing an elderly white woman.

At issue: the conviction of a 19 year old African American man, sentenced to death in Georgia, by an all-white jury.

Jury selection boils down to how prosecution and defense lawyers use peremptory strikes. These are the set number of prospective jurors who can be eliminated by each side without any stated reason.

In 1986, in Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court made an exception to the centuries-old rule that peremptory challenges are completely discretionary. It ruled that race discrimination in jury selection was unconstitutional and required lawyers accused of it to provide a nondiscriminatory explanation.

But Monday’s case, Foster v. Chatman, appears poised to be an exception.

The original jury pool for Timothy Foster’s 1987 murder trial in Rome, Ga., included 10 blacks among 95 potential jurors. After more than half the pool was excused for specific reasons, each side was allowed to make a set number of additional strikes, as long as it wasn’t because of race or gender. On a sheet during the selection process, prosecutors listed the five remaining black prospects on top labeled definite NO’s.

On objection, the defense cried foul, but the trial judge and every appellate court after that accepted the prosecution’s alternative nonracial reasons. The courts continued to accept these nonracial justifications even after the defense in 2006 obtained the prosecutor’s jury selection notes.

During the selection process, prosecutors highlighted their names, circled the word ‘black’ on their questionnaires and added handy notations. Prosecutors also rated the black jurors against each other in case the prosecution had to accept one black juror.

Georgia courts have consistently rejected Foster’s claims of discrimination, even after his lawyers obtained the prosecution’s notes that revealed prosecutors’ focus on the black people in the jury pool.

The Foster case could give the court the chance to add teeth to its standards. Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the court could clarify what trial judges should do when prosecutors offer “a laundry list of reasons for striking the black juror, and some of those are reasonable and some are implausible.”

Justice Stephen Breyer also added his commentary in questioning the rationale, saying “I think any reasonable person looking at this would say no, his reason was a purpose to discriminate on the basis of race.”

If the justices find that Foster’s constitutional rights were violated and instruct that he be given a new trial, the ruling could impact the way prosecutors, defense attorneys and trial judges handle jury selection in the future.

Furthermore, because Foster received a death sentence, the decision could fuel concerns previously voiced by two justices that the death penalty itself may be unconstitutional.

For more information, please see:

Al-Jazeera America — Supreme Court takes up racial bias in jury selection case – 2 November 2015

BBC News — US Supreme Court hears white jury case – 2 November 2015

CBS News – Supreme Court seems troubled by prosecutor’s rejection of black jurors – 2 November 2015

NPR — Supreme Court Weighs 1987 Conviction By All-White Jury – 2 November 2015

NY Times — Supreme Court to Decide if Georgia Went Too Far in Excluding Black Jurors – 2 November 2015

USA Today — Supreme Court takes up racial discrimination in jury selection – 2 November 2015

Wall Street Journal — Supreme Court Justices Fault Rejection of Blacks in Jury-Selection Case – 2 November 2015

By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America and Oceania

MARION, ALABAMA, United States of America — The SPLC filed a judicial ethics complaint against an Alabama judge who forced people unable to pay court fines and fees to give blood or face jail time. The judge’s announcement was made to dozens of defendants in a packed courtroom to deal with court fees.

Some of the 500 defendants gave blood to avoid jail, but their debt remained.

Perry County Circuit Judge Marvin Wiggins threatened defendants in his court with jail on September 17. Judge Wiggins noted that the Sheriff had enough handcuffs for those unable to pay and unwilling to donate blood, according to the complaint filed with the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama.

According to the SPLC, Judge Wiggins said in a recording, “If you do not have any money and you don’t want to go to jail, consider giving blood today.”

The offenders were to be given a $100 voucher that would go toward their fines and fees for misdemeanor and traffic crimes. Wiggins said to consider the option of giving blood “a discount rather than putting you in jail.” However, no one who donated blood received any “discount” on their court debt; they simply received a reprieve from being thrown in jail.

Most of the people in the courtroom still owed thousands of dollars to the court, even after years of making payments, according to the complaint. Virtually every case included fees that indigent defendants had been charged to recoup money for their court-appointed counsel

Without speaking to the judge about their financial situation, many indigent defendants gave blood out of fear of going to jail. The complaint outlines several ethics violations, including failure to demonstrate professional competence and failure to uphold the integrity of the law.

Some lawyers have questioned the constitutionality of it all.

In its complaint, the SPLC has claimed Judge Wiggins’ violated both Alabama statutory law and constitutional law.

“By jailing people for their inability to pay, the city violates their 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection under the law. The warrantless arrests violate Alabama law and the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The arrests also violate individuals’ right to counsel, protected by the Sixth Amendment.”

“People who couldn’t pay their court debt with cash literally paid with their blood,” said Sara Zampierin, SPLC staff attorney. “This is a shocking disregard for not only judicial ethics but for the constitutional rights of defendants.”

The Judicial Inquiry Commission could recommend that Wiggins face ethics charges in the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.

For more information, please see:

BBC News — Alabama judge orders defendants to give blood to avoid jail – 20 October 2015

CBS News – Judge to defendants: To avoid jail, pay court fees, or give blood – 20 October 2015

NPR — Alabama Judge Accused Of Telling Offenders To Give Blood Or Go To Jail – 20 October 2015

Reuters — Alabama judge accused of telling debtors to give blood or face jail time – 20 October 2015

SPLC — SPLC ethics complaint: Alabama judge forced defendants with court debt to give blood or go to jail – 20 October 2015

Time — Alabama Judge Tells Offenders to Give Blood or Face Jail – 20 October 2015