Gender Discrimination in Jury Selection as Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

A defendant’s right to reasonably competent legal representation is violated when the defendant’s lawyer discriminates on the basis of gender during jury selection, the Seventh Circuit ruled last week inWinston v. Boatwright (No. 10-1156).  The court’s reasoning would presumably apply equally to racial discrimination.  However, because of the peculiarities of federal habeas law, the particular defendant who presented the claim in Winston was unable to obtain any relief.

Here’s what happened.  Winston was charged with sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old girl and convicted by an all-woman jury.  His lawyer had used his seven peremptory strikes to remove six men and one woman from the jury.  As Winston’s post-conviction counsel later discovered, the trial lawyer struck the male jurors because he thought that females would be more critical of the victim.

Apart from the fact that such gender discrimination is illegal, trial counsel’s strategy may actually have been a good one.  Indeed, the jury acquitted Winston of an intercourse charge.

No matter, the Seventh Circuit ruled.  Competent counsel (in the constitutional sense) does not discriminate against men in the exercise of peremptory strikes.  Period.

Continue ReadingGender Discrimination in Jury Selection as Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

ICC Jurisdiction Over Gaddafi

Last week I wrote that the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) is unlikely to try Syria’s President Assad for crimes against humanity because the Court would probably lack jurisdiction. The Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—empowers the Court to exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes (1) committed within the territory of a state-party, (2) committed by a national of a state-party, (3) referred to the Court for prosecution by the UN Security Council, or (4) committed within a non-state-party’s territory or by one of its nationals, if referred to the Court by that non-state-party. In Assad’s case, jurisdiction is unlikely because Syria is not a state-party to the Rome Statute, and the UN Security Council is unlikely to refer the matter to the ICC because Russia and China would object. While it is possible that a post-Assad regime could refer Assad’s crimes to the Court for prosecution, Syrian domestic politics would probably push strongly in favor of domestic prosecution.

The question of ICC jurisdiction is also relevant to ongoing events in Libya. With Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in the midst of collapse and the Colonel himself in hiding, we should consider what role, if any, the ICC will play once Gaddafi is found. Here, the prospect of ICC prosecution seems significantly higher. Like Syria, Libya is not a state-party to the Rome Statute. But in February 2011, the Security Council passed a resolution referring Gaddafi’s use of military force against regime opponents in early 2011 to the ICC. The resolution ordered “Libyan authorities” to “cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court,” and “urge[d] all [other] States” to cooperate fully as well. Several months later, the Court issued arrest warrants against Gaddafi and two other Libyan officials for offenses including crimes against humanity.

Now that Gaddafi has lost control of the government and is in hiding, it will be interesting to see whether the ICC is able to make use of its established jurisdiction. With the Libyan government obliged to adhere to the Security Council’s resolution and all other states urged to do likewise, Gaddafi may have few places to hide.

Continue ReadingICC Jurisdiction Over Gaddafi

The Constitutional Right of Recall

The largest newspaper in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, continues to take the editorial position that the public’s right to recall elected officials should only be exercised in cases of misfeasance in office or of criminal conduct.  The editorial page actively disparages the use of the recall process in cases where voters simply disagree with the policy choices of their elected representatives.  Recent examples of this editorial position can be seen here, and in the decision to excerpt a similar editorial published by the newspaper USA Today here.  On this past Sunday, Steven Walters commented in the Journal-Sentinel on possible amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution intended to modify the existing recall provisions and to bring them into line with the more limited scope advocated by these editorials.

I have commented on this issue before.   The editorial position of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is misguided.  In particular, in editorializing against the exercise of the recall power, the Journal-Sentinel fails to account for both the specific text of the Wisconsin Constitution and the understanding of the recall power among the founding generation of our country.  The key to understanding the proper scope of the recall power is the basic conception of “the sovereignty of the people.”

Continue ReadingThe Constitutional Right of Recall