Unequal Protection Under the Law

Abstract

We interrogate the Georgia Supreme Court ruling in the 2002 capital murder trial of Brandon Smith to illustrate how “fair cross section” implementation in Georgia’s legal system was used to create case law that institutionalized discrimination against Hispanic participation in the jury process. By paying scrupulous attention to legal precedents specifically intended to widen inclusion under the equal protection clause, the Justices’ decision put into place one legal standard for Hispanic participation in the jury process and another standard for all other groups. Using critical race theory, we argue that legal precedents based on distorted perceptions of the composition of the Hispanic community in new destination states, common practices of jury forced balancing and sole reliance on decennial census numbers collided to create case law that unintentionally deprives Georgia’s Hispanics of equal protection under the law and may contribute to the disproportionate presence of racialized minorities and Hispanic youth in the criminal justice system.

Anti-Immigrant Ordinances and Discrimination in New and Established Destinations

“…As the country has moved inexorably toward a “majority-minority” status, with the majority of population growth occurring among Latinos and other minority groups, changes in patterns of immigration and settlement have received increasing attention. Immigrants and their children seek the promise of upward mobility against the headwinds of economic uncertainty and discrimination from U.S.-born individuals and political elites (Bohon, Conley, & Brown, 2014; Silver, 2014). The enactment of exclusionary laws—laws that restrict the rights of and services accorded to immigrant groups—in states such as Alabama and Arizona has raised concerns that immigrant communities will face increased hardship as a result (Ebert, Estrada, & Lore, in press).…”