Do Blacks share the same constitutional rights as others?

In my professional and personal experience dealing with the laws of the United States of America, especially constitutional law I find the words in theory are wonderful, but in practice not guaranteed to all Americans.  Let's look at the 6th Amendment to the constitution, it reads as follows:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords criminal defendants seven discrete personal liberties: (1) the right to  a Speedy trial, (2) the right to a public trial; (3) the right to an impartial jury; (4) the right to be informed of pending charges; (5) the right to confront and to cross-examine adverse witnesses; (6) the right to compel favorable witnesses to testify at trial through the subpoena power of the judiciary; and (7) the right to legal counsel. Ratified in 1791, the Sixth Amendment originally applied only to criminal actions brought by the federal government.

Basically, we are all guaranteed the right to have a jury of our peers; which is defined as others in our community, socioeconomic, racial etc.  The jury pool should represent other Americans that  represent US.  So whats the problem? Well not enough of US want to do jury duty, so that leaves alot of individuals that don't relate to urban, racial, economic, social issues so their judgement is biased and tainted to their own lifestyles.  

The Sixth Amendment entitles defendants to a jury pool that represents a fair cross section of the community. From the jury pool, also known as a venire, a panel of jurors is selected to hear the case through a process called voir dire.   During voir dire, the presiding judge, the prose cution, and attorneys for the defense are allowed to ask members of the jury pool a variety of questions intended to reveal any latent biases, prejudices, or other influences that might affect their impartiality. The Sixth Amendment requires a trial judge to inquire as to the possible racial biases of prospective jurors when defendants request such an inquiry and there are substantial indications that racial prejudice could play a decisive role in the outcome of the case (United States v. Kyles, 40 F.3d 519 [2d Cir. 1994]). But an all-white jury does not, by itself, infringe on a black defendant's right to an impartial jury despite her contention that white jurors are incapable of acting impartially due to their perceived ignorance of inner-city life and its problems (United States v. Nururdin, 8 F.3d 1187 [7th Cir. 1993]). However, if a white juror is biased by an indelible prejudice against a black defendant, he will be stricken from the jury panel or venire.
 Basically, we rely on the judge and attorneys to ensure all jurors are impartial and fair, but how flawed is that process?  Well it is entirely flawed, not everyone is honest about their personal beliefs, nor will admit it.  Some people don't think they are prejudice or racist either.  So the defendant's mercy is at a flawed system, not just a conspiracy against poor and people of color as we may suspect. 

Here is a interesting link I'd like to share...I could go on all day about our legal system and the violation of Black American's so called rights but I will let you the reader decide, knowledge is power!

http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=21621796&msgid=1266157&act=LB03&c=242394&destination=http://www.kulturekritic.com/2012/05/news/racial-jury-nullification-re-visited-should-black-jurors-let-off-black-defendants/

please also visit the ACLU website:  www.aclu.org

Peace, Love and Strength

T. Davis