It would be impossible to have a fair trial after 30 years.
30 years is a long jail sentence to have served.
That is probably enough.
Permalink | Report

You know, after 30 years and looking death in the face, somehow I doubt this guy is going to go and rape and murder more people as soon as he's set free (since how are you going to have a fair trial decades later? Are all the witnesses from before able and willing to testify again?). There is something to be said for the integrity of a fair trial to begin with (which he didn't have, thanks to the racial division), so I'm going to say yes, he should go free if he can't be given a fair trial presently, though why this wasn't address years ago is beyond me. It's not like segregation ended six months ago.
Permalink | Report

It's unfortunate that the only way we can address unfairness in things like jury selection is to invalidate an otherwise appropriate outcome. But I guess the philosophy is that the system of protections keeping innocents free is more important than making sure that every guilty person is convicted.

I agree with that principle, but this case seems to test the limits for me. The man in question was not black, and even if he was, he doesn't have a right to have any particular racial composition on his jury.

The harmed party in this case where the black jurors who were excluded. The fact that they were not allowed to fully participate in the judicial system is an abridgment of their status as citizens. I see that. What I don't see is how freeing this guy is in any way compensation for what was done to them.
Permalink | Report

Given that he's white, I fail to see how his likelihood of being convicted would have increased just because there weren't any blacks on the jury. If anything having blacks may have worked against him, as the theory is generally that juries are less likely to convict a defendant if they identify with him. The direct implication of this is that his chances would have been improved by having an all-white jury.
To me (and I'm not American, so I'm not quite sure if this is possible, but hey, I've watched Boston Legal and Alan Shore went to the Supreme Court), justice would be best served by the prosecutors appealing the Court of Appeals decision. The decision to do this or not should be separate to whether or not you believe 30 years is an appropriate sentence anyway. We in the general community also don't know what this guy is still like, so who amongst us knows whether or not 30 years is enough to sort him out and rehabilitate him.
Disclaimer: All my comments are prefaced on the belief that he did commit the crime for which he was convicted - he's got a scary looking face so he must of done it.
Permalink | Report