Judge Allows White Supremacist To Cover His Nazi Tattoos So Jurors Can Treat Him Fair

[Hyorinmaru]

I would read this first if I were you, it would probably help

This article popped up in my newsfeed over on Facebook and I got to wondering what everyone here thought about it.


I personally don't know what to think. i believe a jury should should see the person as they really are but on the other hand this quote

A panel of potential jurors allegedly said they wouldn’t be able to treat Morgan’s case fairly because of the markings, prompting a district judge to require them to be covered.

stuck with me.


A jury's job is is to weigh the facts in any given case not a person's past (keyword there) acts or affiliations but if he's a racist skinhead people should know. On the other hand he may hold to those ideas anymore but just not have the money to get them removed (which is rather expensive) in which case people shouldn't judge.

See guys? See why I'm in the middle on this?

 

[enviousdominous]

I wouldn't let myself get put into a moral trap over this guy.

I think that since he's probably going to have the book thrown at him when he's being tried for that murder charge, the court wants to do as much as they can to avoid appearing as though they didn't do everything in their power to ensure a fair trial.

He obviously won't be the last, but hopefully a few easily influenced young people will see his example and think twice about getting hateful tattoos on their faces.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

All things considered, it's probably the right decision to make because it's going to be difficult enough to get an unbiased jury. This guy would probably not be able to get any sort of semi-decent job with the tattoos on his face no matter what they were; a person could have a tattoo of the names of their deceased children on his/her face and am employer almost certainly wouldn't hire them. A jury is supposed to be made up of regular, run of the mill people and regular, run of the mill people are going to be inflamed when they're being asked to weigh the innocence or guilt of a defendant with Nazi tattoos on his face.

The courts are backed up enough, so any sort of delay in possibly having to replace jury members or convene an entirely new jury only puts things even further behind. What a person did or didn't do, as based on the evidence presented, is what's supposed to determine innocence or guilt, not personal beliefs or tattoos in unfortunate, and idiotic, places.

 

[TJ Matics]

People's past get brought up in court daily to establish a history, for juries and judges. But this guy's present tats get covered, by a judge ordered cosmetologist?

I guess you don't necessarily have to go to Stanford to get the Brock Turner care package.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

What is the trial for? The article has been removed.

If his crime involved any kind of racial abuse, threat or cause for him to kill someone, then no, they shouldn't be covered up.

If he's trial is for something else, then he should be questioned for that only and not his past or other personal things.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

What is the trial for? The article has been removed.

Well shit

The one where the tattoos are being covered up is a robbery trial. Later he will be on trial for capital murder where a different judge will have to make that call. not sure if either was racially motivated though.

People's past get brought up in court daily to establish a history, for juries and judges. But this guy's present tats get covered, by a judge ordered cosmetologist? .

There's also a little thing that says if they don't have any bearing on the trial at hand they can't be used against a person. We don't know why he got these highly offensive tattoos or if the robbery is based on the victim's race. Normally I would be agreeing with you but we don't have enough info in this case.

 

[Xemmy]

I think it depends on whether or not his tattoos could actually be linked to the crime. If non-white victims were a factor in either case then it's probably not right to cover them.

But if I'm honest, fair or not, how you look is how you look. Those tattoos are part of him, by choice. And if black people have to deal with juror bias over their skin color, a white supremacist can deal with juror bias over his own life choice.

 

[Navi]

I don't think there is enough information to judge this either. We don't know the details of the crimes, so if the tattoo's would be a factor in determining innocence or guilt.

But I have to say this. If you are going to embark on a career robbing people at gunpoint and getting arrested for murder, you have pretty much pegged yourself as a career criminal.

He's obviously not a bright individual as not only did he make a bad career choice, he coupled that by getting probably the worst tattoo's in a place that you can't hide them.

Putting makeup on him is just putting a mask over the person that he really is and I'm not sure that a jury shouldn't see that.

 

[TJ Matics]

There's also a little thing that says if they don't have any bearing on the trial at hand they can't be used against a person. We don't know why he got these highly offensive tattoos or if the robbery is based on the victim's race. Normally I would be agreeing with you but we don't have enough info in this case.

Yes I’m aware of that, but if someone’s past can be brought up for relevancy someone’s clear and present personal beliefs shouldn’t have a sheet thrown over them by the judge because it is relevant to his character, which is fair game. The victims can be as white as him, the tattoos that are on his face and neck still speaks to a state of mind that he walks around in. What tale he wants to spin about how he got the tattoos, what they mean and don’t mean, and what lengths he’ll go through to cover them up should be between him and his lawyer. I get that the judge has a job to keep the trials as fair as possible, but if I'm the victim or family/friend of the victim(s) it'd seem to me that the judge is more so acting as if he's part of the defense team.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

Yes I’m aware of that, but if someone’s past can be brought up for relevancy someone’s clear and present personal beliefs shouldn’t have a sheet thrown over them by the judge because it is relevant to his character, which is fair game. The victims can be as white as him, the tattoos that are on his face and neck still speaks to a state of mind that he walks around in. What tale he wants to spin about how he got the tattoos, what they mean and don’t mean, and what lengths he’ll go through to cover them up should be between him and his lawyer. I get that the judge has a job to keep the trials as fair as possible, but if I'm the victim or family/friend of the victim(s) it'd seem to me that the judge is more so acting as if he's part of the defense team.

Dude your bias is showing. I get that these tattoos offend you, they offend me too. You claim to be aware that unrelated past acts have no bearing on this trial but seem to be ready lock this guy away and toss the key in the dumpster based on his poor choice of ink

Personal beliefs aside we don't know if the robbery he's on trial for was racially motivated or if the man is a racist anymore (or at all). We don't know why he got them. The fact of life on the inside is you need protection from someone because people are out to get you. For a white male one of the few (and sometimes only) option is The Aryan Brotherhood whether you hold their beliefs or not.

 

[TJ Matics]

You claim to be aware that unrelated past acts have no bearing on this trial but seem to be ready lock this guy away and toss the key in the dumpster based on his poor choice of ink

I simply pointed out that it still speaks to his character. Whether that character is in his past or present should be up to his defense to handle and for a jury to decide if the tattoos are what he represents today or not. I've said nothing about what the actual verdict should be, so "taking the key and tossing it" comes from your own assumptions based off the points that I've made that you seem to have missed.

Personal beliefs aside we don't know if the robbery he's on trial for was racially motivated or if the man is a racist anymore (or at all). We don't know why he got them.

Hence,

The victims can be as white as him

I see a lot of people responding about how important the race of the victims are, which is true to a certain extent, but if anyone here honestly thinks that white supremacists of any shake only victimize people of color you're kidding yourself. And if the argument is that the tattoos are possibly not what what he represents anymore (or ever) then the race of the victims is even more of a moot point.

The fact of life on the inside is you need protection from someone because people are out to get you. For a white male one of the few (and sometimes only) option is The Aryan Brotherhood whether you hold their beliefs or not.

Whether this is true or not, it's what the defense should say to a jury because it's not a hard story to pitch. Except the judge took it upon himself to lighten this load which I say is wrong.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

I simply pointed out that it still speaks to his character. Whether that character is in his past or present should be up to his defense to handle and for a jury to decide if the tattoos are what he represents today or not.

If you think anyone can see the words Baby Nazi tattooed on someone's neck and still give them a fair trial you're delusional.

The judge did his job because his character isn't on trial and was smart enough to realize no one would see past the words on his neck and if you say otherwise I'll call you a liar.

 

[TJ Matics]

If you think anyone can see the words Baby Nazi tattooed on someone's neck and still give them a fair trial you're delusional.

I guess you were only half delusional at this point:

See guys? See why I'm in the middle on this?

The judge did his job because his character isn't on trial

Yeah, his character has absolutely nothing to do with him or his actions. ...

if you say otherwise I'll call you a liar.

You've went out of your way to assure me your name calling would mean nothing.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

I guess you were only half delusional at this point:

I thought about it since posting this thread and came down on a side.

Yeah, his character has absolutely nothing to do with him or his actions. ...

I never said that because that would be stupid. What I said was they have no bearing on the ROBBERY trial where the only action of his that should be taken into consideration is the act of robbery he allegedly committed.

You've went out of your way to assure me your name calling would mean nothing.

It's nice to know you won't be offended if it comes to that.

 

[TJ Matics]

What I said was they have no bearing on the ROBBERY trial

So you've went from not having enough info on the case to you now stating that the tattoos have no bearing...

 

[LSN80]

As much as we like to think as human beings that we're impartial and unbiased, we're simply not.

This works for me for several reasons. First, the man isn't going on trial for anything related to his being a white supremacist. He's doing so for allegedly robbing a man at gunpoint. That has nothing to do with the color of his skin, his distaste for those of skin color differing from his, or whatever moral code he may(or may not) subscribe to. The only question the jurors on his case should be asking themselves is "Did this dude do what he's accused of?" What he believes and the manner in which he goes about it is irrelevant. And those tattoos make it impossible for potential jurists to look at him that way. How do I know this? Well, from the posted article:

A panel of potential jurors allegedly said they wouldn’t be able to treat Morgan’s case fairly because of the markings.

So potential jurors are admitting they couldn't treat him objectively as a result of his tattoos? The judge in this case did the only reasonable thing he could: He made it so that the tattoos can't even be a factor in his case. So the case will be decided on the merits of it. Not because one of the jurors looked at him and said "I don't like(or I DO like how this man looks, and that's how I'm going to come to my decision."

Second, it eliminates grounds for appeal. Any defense attorney worth their salt would have a field day in appellate court if this man would have been tried and convicted by a jury with these tattoos visible. It's for this reason that those who go on trial wear their street clothes and aren't handcuffed in front of a jury. Those are dehumanizing elements of the legal system and easy grounds for appeal. I read recently about a mistrial being declared in a local homicide case in my area(Pittsburgh)because the Sheriff handcuffed the defendant in front of the jury. In street clothes, juries think "He's just like you or me." In cuffs and prison oranges(or blues or reds etc.) they think "scumbag." So this judge has eliminated the risk of an appeal on these grounds.

Not convinced yet?

A panel of potential jurors allegedly said they wouldn’t be able to treat Morgan’s case fairly because of his hair color, prompting a district judge to require his hair color be dyed back to black from red.

A panel of potential jurors allegedly said they wouldn’t be able to treat Morgan’s case fairly because of his long hair, prompting a district judge to require him to be shaved bald..

Ok, so I made those two up, but my point stands. If something is that significant that it's making it impossible(by admission here) for a person to receive a fair trial, you change the variable that's making it unfair. It's for that reason that venue changes are done at times in high-profile cases. They can't find anyone who hasn't heard of the case/formed an opinion on it, so they move the trial to some backwater town that doesn't have the internet and find 12 jurors who have no knowledge of the facts surrounding the case.

His tattoos may paint him as hateful and a killer(the teardrop tattoos) but they have nothing to do with the case being made against him. Who is or what he stands for doesn't have a darn thing to do with the fact that he's guaranteed a fair trial, andby their own admission, potential jurors can't provide him that if they remain uncovered.

Thumbs up to this judge.

I simply pointed out that it still speaks to his character. Whether that character is in his past or present should be up to his defense to handle and for a jury to decide if the tattoos are what he represents today or not.

Nope, sorry, not even a little bit. The only job the jury has is deciding whether or not dude did it or not. Anything that gets in the way of them doing that objectively has to go. Things such as character cannot even be brought into the discussion at a trial because of the prejudice it creates. Since it's been established that the tattoos speak to this man's character, the judge did the only reasonable thing.

 

[Dave]

This is so simple. Is everyone in a developed country like the United States and the United Kingdom entitled to a fair trial? If your answer to that question is "yes", then this is a no-brainer. The guys knows, as well as the judge and the jury, that his tattoos are going to ensure that the jury loses their impartiality and that is going to result in a less than fair trial. Just because you don't like what someone else likes, as heinous as it is, doesn't mean that their rights should be eradicated. The judge did the right thing.

 

[TJ Matics]

So potential jurors are admitting they couldn't treat him objectively as a result of his tattoos?

Yes, some potential jurors said some alleged things. In other news: this doesn't reflect how every other person in America who could be called on for jury duty feels.

The only job the jury has is deciding whether or not dude did it or not.

Which is directly related to who he is as a person, some might call it his character. But wait...

Things such as character cannot even be brought into the discussion at a trial because of the prejudice it creates.

Character and a criminal trials go hand in hand, it’s all but sensationalized at this point. It’s up to a judge to ensure fair trials, but that’s not throwing sheets over defendants. Jury selection can very well be a long and tedious process, but it’s a process that needs to be completed nonetheless. Find the jurors you feel best to do the job, the rest is up to the lawyers. If you’re worried about prejudice and partiality beyond that, keep worrying, you’ll never be able to fully escape it.

The judge did the only reasonable thing.

He made such a reasonable choice that the man’s face and tattoos (pre and post face beat) have garnered so much attention that it’s all over the internet. Don’t worry though, some potential jurors allegedly said they wouldn’t look.