Therefore an improper denial of the use of a peremptory challenge is not a Sixth Amendment or Federal constitutional violation. One of the primary issues impacting jury impartiality in jurisdictions across the country is the under-representation of racial and ethnic minorities.
This dynamic has historic origins as women and minorities were systematically excluded from jury service. The Supreme Court has since attempted to address these issues by generating a rule that requires juries be selected from a "fair cross-section" of society. The selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
Louisiana , U. Missouri , U. The Court has not defined the term "distinctive," but indicated that it " must be linked to the purposes of the fair cross-section requirement. McCree , U. Louisiana , the Court described the purpose of the fair cross-section requirement as 1 "guard[ing] against the exercise of arbitrary power" and ensuring that the "common sense judgment of the community" will act as "a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor," 2 preserving "public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system," and 3 implementing our belief that "sharing in the administration of justice is a phase of civic responsibility.
Examples of distinctive groups are: Black people Peters v. Kiff , U. Louisiana , Mexican-Americans Castaneda v. Partida , U. Reasons vary as to why juries still lack the diversity of the communities from which they are drawn. Below are some examples of how certain processes may ultimately create less diverse jury pools. Louisiana , Mexican-Americans Castaneda v. Partida , U. Reasons vary as to why juries still lack the diversity of the communities from which they are drawn.
Below are some examples of how certain processes may ultimately create less diverse jury pools. This Guide to Federal Evidence is the only federal evidence handbook written exclusively for criminal defense lawyers. The Guide analyzes each Federal Rule of Evidence and outlines the main evidentiary issues that confront criminal defense lawyers. It also summarizes countless defense favorable cases and provides tips on how to avoid common evidentiary pitfalls.
The Guide contains multiple user-friendly flowcharts aimed at helping the criminal defense lawyer tackle evidence problems. Modern cases need modern defenses, and modern lawyers can't practice with an outdated playbook.
This program is a contemporary training that identifies emerging technologies and digital evidence encountered in today's criminal cases and arms you with the tools necessary to combat expert witnesses, prosecutorial overreach, and an uneducated judge and jury. This comprehensive CLE program covers both general aspects of new technologies as well as practical courtroom application and legal challenges to the use of these new technologies.
Learn from the best-of-the-best in the field in this unique CLE Program, updated for From challenging the arrest and seizure to picking a jury and cross-examining police officers, defense attorneys handling drug cases must be able to construct a defense that will increase the chances of the client getting a positive result for your client.
Effective motion practice, juror selection, and storytelling have never been more important. Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, court administrators have faced increasing challenges to ensuring that juries are representative.
Given these trends, during the height of the pandemic, young white men became the most likely group of individuals to show up for jury duty. As vaccine rollout continues and the risk associated with participating in a jury trial decreases, these demographics are beginning to shift. The restraint on racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is now a two-way street. Dowd, U. Louisiana, U. Gladden, U. Illinois, U. Beto, U. West Virginia, U.
Kiff, U. Texas, U. Partida, U. Glasser v. United States, U. Southern Pacific Co. In Taylor v. Missouri, U. See also Williams v. Florida, U. Allen, U. In Fay v. New York, U. With the extension of the jury trial provision and its fair cross section requirement to the States, the opinions in these cases must be considered tenuous, but the Court has reiterated that defendants are not entitled to a jury of any particular composition.
Taylor , U. Congress has implemented the constitutional requirement by statute in federal courts by the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act of , Pub.
McCree, U. To show that underrepresentation resulted from systematic exclusion requires rigorous evidence beyond merely pointing to a single factor or a host of factors that might have caused fewer members of a distinct group to have been included. Berghuis v. Smith, U. On common-law grounds, the Court in Crawford v. Wood, U. Begin the lesson by assigning students to either read or view Twelve Angry Men.
Distribute the following questions beforehand. In practical terms, this also means that Supreme Court decisions relating to the right to trial by jury also apply in state courts.
0コメント