Jury Trials Flashcards
(24 cards)
6th Amendment
guarantees the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury representing a cross-section of the community in criminal prosecutions
but what does cross-section include?
Where is a 12 person jury (not) required?
-12 person jury required for federal crime cases
-not required for states and can vary
Justice Gorsuch view on jury size
In favor of 12 person jury at federal and state level
Why do we have a jury?
They combat overzealous prosecutors or judges who may be unfair
What is the value of a 12 person jury as opposed to a smaller number?
The greater the number of people, the greater chance a fair and just decision is made
You want sufficient group deliberation to prevent miscarriages of justices
Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) main question
Does the opt in requirement for women violate your 6th amendment right to have a jury that represents a cross section of the community?
*during this time, women had the option to opt in for jury duty
*What is Florida’s law on jury size?
Anything other than a death penalty can have a jury of 6. Death penalties can have 12 jurors (6 is not significantly different and the deliberative processes)
Recently passed law requires conviction on a 12 to 0 vote but during the time of the Florida law, jury votes did not need to be unanimous at the state level. Court ruled that if you have 6 jurors, like Florida, the vote DOES have to be unanimous
Taylor v. Louisiana context
Billy Taylor is convicted of kidnapping by all male jury and challenges ruling on the grounds that the jury violated his 6th amendment because there were no women
Of the pool of 175 from which the jury was drawn, there were 0 women
Taylor v. Louisiana ruling
Court says the opt in system for women is illegal and violates the 6th amendment right because they cause a “flavor or distinct quality of the community to be lost”
Was based on the assumption that it would interfere with women’s family role, however this was a very dated notion at the time of the case
Duren v. Missouri (1979) context
Man convicted of murder by a jury comprised of all men– claims violation of the 6th amendment
At the time Missouri had an opt-out system, which allowed women to request exemption from a jury
According to the state of Missouri, how was this case different from the Louisiana case?
State says this is different than Billy Taylor’s case because there were 5 women in the 153 jury pool
Jury pool had about 15% women under the opt out system
Duren v. Missouri outcome
-Established a three-part test for systematic exclusion of jurors
-Opt out system ruled to violate the 6th Amendment because it relied on traditional notions of women’s roles that failed the test for government interest
*Three-part test for systematic exclusion of juries
- The group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community
- The representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and resonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community
- This underrepresentation is due to systematic exclsuion of the group in the jury-selection process
If a violation of the three part rule is established, then for its jury selection system to survive the State must show that its jury selection process advances a significant government interest
Does it matter if you have representation in the jury pool but not in the final jury selection?
Only matters if you have representation in the jury pool
Jury selection and equal protection
-the laws surrounding jury representaion are more of an equal protection clause masquerading as a 6th Amendment question
-Race, gender, and ethnicity are the main concerns when having a jury pool
Categories such as age and education are not a 6th amendment violation (these are not suspect class)
Challenge for cause
The attorney strikes a prospective juror based on they juror’s stated opinion that there is some aspect of the law that they cannot or will not follow
E.g. person on trial is your friend
Two ways to challenge biased jurors
- Challenge for cause
- Peremptory challenge
Peremptory challenge
The attorney does not need to state the reason why he or she dismissed the prospective juror. In some cases, it may be based on no more than a hunch
Might believe a juror would be bad for your client
E.g. lack of attention
Limitations on peremptory challenges
Number of perempotory challenges can vary:
-20 max for federal death penalty case
-10 if lesser felony case
When are peremptory challenges mainly used?
Most often used when the judge rules against you challenge for cause
Permptory challenges as they relate to Trump NY trial.
Unhappy to learn team had 10 peremptory strikes
Because Trump is polarizing, 60 people were dismissed for cause because they felt they couldn’t be unbiased
Are states required to grant peremptory challenges?
No, they’re only required to grant challenges for cause (which is granted by the 6th Amendment)
Examples of questions during jury selection process
Prosecutor:
-Could you convict the defendant even if there’s no physical evidence linking him to the crime?
Won’t be able proceed because you should be able to convict on circumstantial evidence alone
-Could you give the death penalty
If you won’t consider it, then you will be removed
Defense attroney
Would you tend to automatically believe the testimony of the police officer?
If yes they’re out, because they need to be able to evaluate the credibility of a police requirement
George Floyd juror example
A prospective juror who once lived in the neighborhood when George Floyd was arrested told the attorney for Derek Chauvin in Floyd’s murder trial that he had seen many black people get killed and no one held accountable and wanted to understand why this happens
But he also said he could set his personal feelings aside and weigh the evidence
These cases are often excluded as a precaution because they don’t want to risk an appeal of a 6th amendment violation
However, the judge said that the juror was just reflecting on the reality of his experience and did not exhibit any deeply held views - so the judge denied the challenge for cause. Prosecutor then challenged for peremptory so the individual was excluded.
