A case that originated in New London could lead to changes in the way juries are selected, with the goal being to assure that defendants get a jury of their peers — not juries that are inclined to assess police evidence less critically and disinclined to give the accused the benefit of the doubt due to racial bias.

In other words, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in learning lessons from the jury selection for that New London trial, wants to assess whether changes are needed to make the system fairer. That’s a good thing, because the objective should be equality in justice for all.

We are not at all surprised that Chief Justice Richard Robinson, the first African American to serve in that position in Connecticut, stepped outside the normal boundaries of assessing an appeal to take this important step. The high court upheld the guilty verdict in the case. It could have stopped there. The court typically does. But it recognized the case raised “broader themes of disparate impact and implicit bias” in jury selection, raising “extremely serious concerns with respect to the public perception and fairness of the criminal justice system.”

So, as part of its decision, authored by Robinson, it ordered the creation of a Jury Selection Task Force, appointed by the chief justice, and charged it with studying the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection and recommending changes.

Robinson, you may recall, sat down with Day Staff Writer Karen Florin on Nov. 6 at Connecticut College for “A Conversation on Race,” at which he discussed the need to address bias in the criminal-justice system.

In the case at point, Evan Holmes had appealed his 2013 conviction for the murder of Jorge Rosa, 25. Holmes claimed that the prosecutor had acted with discrimination in keeping a black man off the jury, denying him a fair trial.

That would-be juror was Winston Taylor, a social worker and supervisor with the Department of Social Services. Questioned during jury selection by the prosecutor, Senior Assistant State's Attorney Paul J. Narducci, Taylor was frank in admitting that, based on his personal and professional experience, certain groups of individuals — minorities — are disproportionately questioned by police, convicted of crimes and subjected to harsher sentences. But he said he could be objective as a juror.

Fearing Taylor might be biased against the prosecution, Narducci used a preemptory challenge — available to both the prosecutor and defense attorney — to dismiss Taylor from the jury pool.

Defense attorney William T. Koch Jr. responded with a “Batson challenge,” referencing a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found preemptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors based solely on race. The trial court judge found Narducci had legitimate reasons beyond race — Taylor’s doubts about the fairness of the system — to dismiss Taylor. Three other black jurors were seated on the jury that convicted Holmes.

While agreeing with the lower courts in upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court expressed concern about the high threshold set by the Batson precedent, a finding “that the prosecutor had … acted with purposeful discrimination in exercising a preemptory challenge.”

By allowing prosecutors to dismiss jurors simply because they may have concerns about police and judicial bias — views more likely to be held by certain minorities — the selection process appears to be allowing an “implicit bias (that) may be equally as pernicious and destructive to the perception of the justice system,” wrote Robinson in the court’s decision.

The state of Washington formed a panel to consider similar concerns about implicit bias. It resulted in a new rule there that it is “presumptively invalid” to reject a juror because they have some distrust of law enforcement or experiences tied to their living in a high-crime neighborhood.

The rule also gives Washington judges more leeway in disallowing preemptory challenges in which race or ethnicity appear to be a factor “in the totality of circumstances.”

“The court need not find purposeful discrimination to deny” the dismissing of a juror, under the new Washington rule.

In Connecticut, the soon-to-be-appointed panel will be allowed to assess the entirety of the jury selection process. Creating a better system is not only vital for the rights of defendants but, as importantly, to improve confidence in the fairness of the criminal-justice system among all communities.

Editor's note: This editorial was updated to correct a spelling error.