A Portland judge Thursday declined to grant a new trial to a 33-year-old African American man despite his argument that he didn't get a fair trial because only one of 12 jurors was black -- and the juror's vote ultimately didn't count.

But even though the decision went against the defendant, it still marked a victory in the fight for those who criticize Oregon's 82-year-old jury system as potentially racist.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Bronson James ruled that the system stems from racial motivations to "dampen the influence" of minorities who sit on juries.

It's the first time an Oregon judge has been asked to weigh in on the controversy, legal observers say.

"Facts exist, and history is as it was, not as we wish it to be," James wrote in his opinion. "And the inescapable conclusion is that the historical evidence supports a racial undercurrent."

Oregon and Louisiana are the only two states that allow 10 of 12 jurors to agree on a verdict in most felony cases. Defense attorneys and members of African American communities have long decried that voting system as tipped against African American defendants.

Because Oregon is 77 percent white and 2 percent black, critics say it's rare to see more than one or two black jurors assigned to any one jury. And if those black jurors dissent from the majority, their votes effectively don't count, critics say.

James wrote in his 32-page ruling that an effort to squelch the voices of nonwhite jurors was precisely part of the motivation behind passage of a 1934 voter-approved amendment to the Oregon Constitution. It eliminated the requirement that all felony jury verdicts must be the result of a 12-0 vote.

James noted that newspaper articles and editorials The Morning Oregonian in the early 1930s captured public sentiment by praising verdicts made by white jurors and criticizing the decisions of a "mixed-blood" jury.

He also said the history of prejudice in Oregon leading up to the amendment can't be ignored: Oregon banned African Americans from moving to the state until 1927. That was just as membership in the Ku Klux Klan was surging, eventually encompassing more than 200,000 devotees in Oregon, James wrote.

James also wrote that several years earlier, Oregon real estate agents had agreed not to sell homes in white neighborhoods to African Americans or "Orientals."

Portland defense attorney Ryan Scott, who represented defendant Olan Jermaine Williams, said he was disappointed that the judge didn't grant his client a new trial, but he hopes that the judge's finding about the jury system will spur change.

The judge noted that the state Legislature could step in, but he didn't elaborate. Legislators have the ability to refer a proposal to voters to change the system back to a 12-0 vote for all felonies. Oregon law currently requires a 12-0 verdict only for murder convictions.

***

At the center of the case is Williams, a 33-year-old Northeast Portland man who was convicted of sodomizing an unconscious man he'd met at a summer barbecue in 2014.

As the barbecue was winding down, a group of guests wanted to continue the party at a bar, but they first had to deal with one of the party guests who had passed out after drinking several shots of cognac, according to a defense summary of the case.

On Williams' suggestion, the other guests agreed to move the man to Williams' apartment so the group -- including Williams -- could head out, according to the defense.

Williams is gay, married and a college graduate with a master's degree. He had one previous criminal conviction: driving under the influence of intoxicants in 2012.

The victim, who is heterosexual and white, awoke some time later to discover himself on a couch in the dark in an apartment that he didn't recognize. He testified that someone was performing oral sex and other sexual acts on him.

He reported it to police and later identified Williams, according to a summary by the prosecution. He hadn't met Williams before the day of the barbecue.

DNA found on the front interior panel of the victim's underpants came back a match to Williams, according to an analysis by the Oregon State Crime Lab.

Scott, the defense attorney, didn't represent Williams trial and has concerns that jurors didn't see the full picture.

Jurors didn't hear, he said, from any defense experts who might have explained how Williams' DNA could have ended up on the passed-out man's underpants through DNA transference -- from the man touching Williams as he helped him onto the couch, then the man touching his underpants.

Although the prosecution contended that the man's identification of Williams was solid, Scott also said jurors didn't hear about how the man wavered with uncertainty at some point before the trial.

The jury found Williams guilty on a 10-2 vote during a three-day trial in July. He was sentenced in August to 8 1/3 years in prison at hearing where members of Portland's African American community voiced frustration over how the criminal justice system treats African Americans.

Among those who spoke was the lone black juror assigned to Williams' trial. She said she voted not guilty and felt the majority of the jury disregarded her view.

A month later, Scott filed a motion for a new trial based on the argument that all people have implicit biases, especially against people of a different race.

Over the course of three hearings spanning nearly two months, Scott argued that the vote of the only juror who was least likely to be biased against Williams didn't count.

Prosecutor Todd Jackson contended that Williams had a fair trial and that it was the strong evidence -- not racial biases -- that resulted in his conviction. He said Williams' defense hadn't presented any evidence that implicit racial bias motivated this particular jury.

***

The judge ruled that although he had "serious concern" that the 10-2 system can treat African American defendants unfairly, he lacked the direct evidence to make that finding. That's one of the reasons he couldn't grant Williams a new trial.

Williams now has several options. He could appeal James' ruling to the Oregon Court of Appeals and spark an appeals process that eventually could lead to the Oregon Supreme Court and possibly even the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justices in the highest court could decide whether Oregon's jury system violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question in 1972 and ultimately let the state's system stand. In 2009, it refused to reconsider.

That refusal disappointed defense attorneys, who also say that allowing convictions with two dissenting votes amounts to reasonable doubt. Supporters of the 10-2 system say it's a system that works and has reduced court costs by lessening the likelihood of hung juries.

-- Aimee Green

503-294-5119