© Jim Lo Scalzo/Reuters"The Supremes"
A Colorado man convicted of unlawful sexual conduct will get a new trial, after the
Supreme Court ruled that states must now take secret jury deliberations into account when they find evidence of racial and ethnic bias.On Monday, a divided Supreme Court
ruled 5-3 in the case of Miguel Angel Peña-Rodriguez, who was convicted of three misdemeanors for harassing and trying to grope two teenage sisters in a dark racetrack bathroom. Peña-Rodriguez was sentenced to two years' probation, but still maintains that he is innocent.
After the verdict, two other jurors submitted sworn statements, saying that one juror, who is referred to as "HC" in court documents,
made a number of biased statements about Peña-Rodriguez behind the closed doors of the jury room.According to the affidavits by the two jurors, HC said that Peña-Rodriguez was guilty "because he's Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want."
The jurors also described how HC knew Peña-Rodriguez was guilty, because, according to him, "nine times out of 10 Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls." HC also called into question the testimony of Peña-Rodriguez's main witness, because he was "an illegal."
Peña-Rodriguez says that
HC's bias views deprived him of a fair trial, but under Colorado law, those statements fall under
the state's "no impeachment" rule, which bars jurors from testifying about statements made during deliberations. Similar rules are found in one form or another in every state, as well as the District of Columbia.
Comment: See also: National strike: Over 100 protests organized against Trump, with more to come