Juries and LGBT Litigants: Berthiaume v. Smith

David Wovrosh, Cincinnati Law 2L, summarizes Berthaiume v. Smith for the National Association for Public Defense. The case, decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, involves LGBT litigants and jury member bias. David writes:

In Berthiaume v. Smith, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that jury members may be questioned during voir dire regarding latent bias predicated on sexual orientation.   Relying on its decision in United States v. Bates and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Rosales-Lopez v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that, where matters of sexual orientation are “inextricably bound up” with the facts of the case, LGBT litigants are entitled to constitutional protections against jury bias.

To learn more about NAPD’s involvement in the case and for the full text of David’s summary, please visit the National Association for Public Defense.

 

LGBTQ Rights in Post-Trump America

By Guest Contributor Josh Langdonaaeaaqaaaaaaaahfaaaajgm3ztliyznkltgwodgtndk0ys1hymrhltmwotq1zja3ztg5zq

After eight years of historic progress and support from the Obama Administration in almost all aspects of the law, from removing barriers to marriage equality and military service, to protecting LGBTQ persons at work and in school, we confront a new President, chosen after one of the most bitter and divisive elections in modern history. Does President Trump’s ascension to the White House mean this progress will be reversed or stalled – even if America’s hearts and minds already are evolving in favor of LGBTQ equality? Hard to say, given the mixed messages first from Candidate and now President Trump.  What’s clear is that much work remains ahead.

Continue reading “LGBTQ Rights in Post-Trump America”