Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado

137 S.Ct. 855 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A man sexually assaulted two teenage sisters in a bathroom. The girls told their father and identified the man as an employee of the racetrack. The police located and arrested D. Each girl separately identified D as the man who had assaulted her. D was charged with harassment, unlawful sexual contact, and attempted sexual assault on a child. None of the empaneled jurors expressed any reservations based on racial or any other bias. And none asked to speak with the trial judge. The jury found D guilty of unlawful sexual contact and harassment, but it failed to reach a verdict on the attempted sexual assault charge. Following the discharge of the jury, D’s counsel entered the jury room to discuss the trial with the jurors. As the room was emptying, two jurors remained to speak with counsel in private. They stated that, during deliberations, another juror had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward D and D’s alibi witness. D’s counsel reported this to the court and, with the court’s supervision, obtained sworn affidavits from the two jurors. According to the two jurors, H. C. told the other jurors that he “believed the defendant was guilty because in [H. C.’s] experience as an ex-law enforcement officer, Mexican men had a bravado that caused them to believe they could do whatever they wanted with women.” The jurors reported that H. C. stated his belief that Mexican men are physically controlling of women because of their sense of entitlement, and further stated, “‘I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.’” H. C. further explained that, in his experience, “nine times out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls.” H. C. also said that he did not find petitioner’s alibi witness credible because, among other things, the witness was “‘an illegal.’” The court denied D’s motion for a new trial under 606(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed as well. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.