Can Pro-Lifers Get A Fair Trial In D.C.?
By DEACON MIKE MANNO
For far too long we have been hearing complaints about a two-tiered justice system in the United States where favored people get breaks that other mere mortals cannot. As an adjunct to that claim, there is also the question of whether people with certain political beliefs can obtain a fair result in certain venues.
For example, there is a complaint that Donald Trump cannot get a fair trial in New York City due to the political breakdown of the juror pool and the demographics of the city. There is also the question about pro-lifers and fair trials in other blue states and districts, again due to the demographic and political views of the local jury pool.
Of course, to most folks such questions of fair trials for pro-life defendants in deep blue venues may seem more academic than practical since the thesis of the question is not easily proven, nor is there an easy correction if it is finally proved. It seems that this is an enormous hill to try to climb.
But there is a recent report on LifeSiteNews by Monica Miller, Ph.D., that looked at a jury pool in a case involving pro-lifers charged with violation of the FACE Act as well as conspiracy charges for conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of women seeking abortions in the District of Columbia. If convicted the nine defendants face 10 years in prison and fines of $230,000.
Dr. Miller, president of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, examined the 34 written questions that were submitted to the 154 potential jurors. She focused on three of the questions asked potential jurors individually:
Q. 20: “In this trial ‘abortion’ will be mentioned, but this case is not about abortion — not whether it is right or wrong, just or unjust — it’s about whether clinics have a right to operate. Do you have any beliefs about abortion that would render you to not be fair and impartial in this case?”
Q. 21: “Have you ever belonged to or contributed to any group that advocates for or against abortion?”
Q. 22: “Have you or a close friend or family member ever participated in any demonstration either for or against abortion?”
According to Dr. Miller, four jurors answered “yes” to the questions above, two admitted to donating to Planned Parenthood, and one said that his wife donated to Planned Parenthood and he was okay with that. Another admitted that she had attended women’s marches in the city supporting abortion and other women’s issues and she was employed as a media consultant to a pro-abortion member of congress.
Another potential juror said that she had been raised Catholic but left the Church over the abortion issue and was now an agnostic.
As each of these potential jurors answered, the defense attorneys raised objections to their remaining members of the jury pool due to their specific support of organizations which promoted abortion. The objections made were for “cause,” meaning that the potential juror was not in a position to fairly hear the case due to their support of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.
In each objection the presiding judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee to the bench who also serves as presiding judge for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), denied the defense motion to strike the potential jurors for cause despite the jurors’ obvious support for abortion. In answer to the defense attorneys the judge reportedly indicated that access to abortion is legal and thus a juror cannot be struck for supporting something that is legal.
Here are some of the other jurors who were also not struck for bias, according to Dr. Miller:
“One juror contributes money to Planned Parenthood and stated he believes protecting access to abortion is important.
“Another juror also heard through media about ‘unborn children being taken from clinics.’ Since he called the unborn ‘unborn children’ — we had hope for him! But, no. He actually donated money directly to abortion centers in Florida, attended pro-abortion rallies, was very concerned about maintaining access to abortion, and even attended a protest at the Supreme Court against the Dobbs decision and admitted that he disapproved of persons who denied women access to abortion. . . .
“A juror said he contributed to Planned Parenthood, wanted to be sure that people had access to ‘reproductive care,’ and admitted that such ‘care’ included abortion.”
The trial is now underway in Washington and the defense attorneys are left to use their limited number of “free” strikes. We’ll have to wait and see how the jury selection process and the judge’s handling of the defense motions to strike apparently biased jurors plays into the final result.
This report disturbs me for a number of reasons. Any time a case is about abortion or related “rights,” there appears to be an automatic bias in favor of one side over the other, and those biases are very personal and difficult for an individual to overlook. When a trial is being held in a venue where the wind only seems to blow in one direction it would seem to me that the courts should recognize the inherent unfairness in that and be willing to move the trial to a more balanced venue.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem there is a recognition of that. In fact, it almost seems as if some prosecutors and plaintiffs’ lawyers are specifically seeking such an unbalanced venue to give their side an edge with the jury pool. Now it may be unwieldy to try to do so. I know “forum shopping” is something that appeals to the plaintiffs’ bar but I think our courts need to take a look at this issue and to start to draft ideas to make trials fairer to all litigants.
We already have enough questions about the state of justice in a polarized population but it’s worth a try.
- + + (You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)
