Jury selection in the United States

Last updated

Jury selection in the United States is the choosing of members of grand juries and petit juries for the purpose of conducting trial by jury in the United States.

Contents

Voir dire

During voir dire , potential jurors are questioned by attorneys and the judge. It has been argued that voir dire is often ineffective at detecting juror bias. [1] Research shows that biographic information in minimal voir dire is not useful for identifying juror bias or predicting verdicts, while attitudinal questions in expanded voir dire can root out bias and predict case outcomes. [2] Extended voir dire in major controlled substance trials may increase accuracy in predicting individual verdicts from 50% to 78%. [3]

Federal

In the federal system, jury selection is governed by the Jury Selection and Service Act and by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in criminal cases, and by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in civil cases. In capital cases, each side gets twenty peremptory strikes. In other felony cases, the defendant gets ten peremptory strikes and the government gets six. In misdemeanor cases, each side has three peremptory strikes. [4]

State

Each U.S. state has its own system, which is subject to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

Jury selection process

A typical jury selection process in the U.S.: [5]

  1. The county creates a list of potential jurors from records. Exactly which records are used vary by state, but they may include state tax filers, motor vehicle registrants, voter lists, or even utility lists.
  2. The county selects randomly from the list of potential jurors and sends those people a juror summons to appear at a particular court on a particular date.
  3. Potential jurors arrive at the courthouse and are placed in a juror pool.
  4. When a particular court needs jurors, a set of people from the juror pool are drawn randomly and placed on a panel that is assigned to that court.
  5. After instruction from the judge, panelists are chosen at random and placed on the jury.
  6. The judge and attorneys ask the jurors questions to look for potential bias or prejudice (for example, knowledge of one of the subjects of the trial). Such jurors will be dismissed and replaced by a new member from the panel. (If necessary, additional panelists may be recruited from the juror pool.)
  7. When a complete jury is formed, possibly with alternate jurors, the remaining panelists are dismissed and the trial begins.

Constitution

Impartiality Clause

Vicinage Clause

Federal criminal petit juries are required to be composed of residents of the state and federal judicial district wherein the crime was committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.

Faults within the jury selection process

Bias

The juror selection process holds the potential for discrimination in the selection of jurors and the final composition of juries. [6] Claims that errors (of all types) were made during jury selection are among the most common of all grounds for criminal appeals. [7] With regard to legal proceedings within the U.S. military, one argument has been advanced that selection of juries for courts-martial is subject to too much control by commanders, who can pick jurors who will be most likely to convict and hand down heavy penalties. [8]

Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986) banned peremptory challenges based solely on race, although the U.S. Supreme Court has since acted to mitigate its impact. [9] The issue of racial bias in jury selection has been complicated by the question of whose rights are implicated; the potential juror's, or the defendant's. [10] A Michigan Law Review article, published in 1978, asserted that young people, during that period, were under-represented on the nation's jury rolls. [11]

A 2012 study from Duke University published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics investigated the effect of jury selection and racial composition on trial outcomes. The study found that black defendants (81%) are significantly more likely than whites (66%) to be convicted when there are no potential black jurors in the pool. Even with only one black member of the jury pool, conviction rates are almost identical (71% for blacks and 73% for whites). While 64% of cases had at least one black potential juror in the pool, only 28% of all trials had one or more black members on the seated jury. "Whenever attorneys use peremptory challenges to strike black members of the pool ... they forgo the possibility of excluding another potential juror with a similar ex ante probability of convicting," and the composition of the jury indirectly reflects that of the juror pool. [12] [13]

A 2018 study published in the University of Illinois Law Review found that prosecutors and judges tend to remove more African-Americans while defense attorneys remove more whites. [14] [15]

As of 2014, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a peremptory challenge based on perceived sexual orientation is unconstitutional. [16]

Lack of juror privacy

Jurors have very little privacy in the jury selection process. They are always required to disclose some personal information, such as their home addresses and whether they are US citizens, and they are asked for more specific information during voir dire. [17] All information collected, whether through a written questionnaire or through questions answered orally in the courtroom, and regardless of whether the potential juror is eventually selected for the trial, is public, unless the judge issues an order to seal part of the record to protect a particular juror's privacy. [17] The court has legitimate reasons for collecting this information (e.g., to determine whether the potential juror lives within the court's district and is therefore eligible to serve), but the information can be misused. [17] [18] Generally, it is legal for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and news media to use information disclosed to the court by a juror to run a criminal background check on jurors or to otherwise investigate jurors. [17] The American Bar Association said in 2014 that it is ethical for lawyers on either side to check potential jurors' use of social media, but not to contact them through social media sites or to seek information about posts that are not public. [19] These independent investigations usually happen without any notice to the jurors, the court, or other parties in the case, which circumvents judicial oversight of the jury selection process. [17] Additionally, sometimes, this personal information has been used by scammers and harassers to commit crimes. [17] As held by the US Court of Appeals in Chin v. Trustees of Boston University (2019), the jurors' names and home addresses can only be kept confidential after a verdict is announced if the judge makes a particularized finding of privacy concerns, such as a credible threat of violence against the jurors. [20] A general concern about harassment in person or through social media is not enough to protect jurors' privacy. [20]

Potential jurors are as sensitive to privacy concerns in court as they are in their everyday lives, and they do not always disclose sensitive information when asked, especially when they do not understand how that information is relevant to the trial at hand. [17] [18] In the early 19th century, potential jurors could not be asked any "questions tending to the disgrace or the dishonor of the juror" or tending to "infamy, or disgrace"; this tradition of requiring potential jurors to disclose only relevant facts, such as a personal connection to the specific case, continued through the 1970s. [18] Since then, however, some potential jurors have been required to disclose, under oath and to the general public, a wide variety of personal information, including, among other things, their religious and political beliefs; which films or television shows they watch; any bumper stickers on their vehicles; their sexual history and sexual orientation; whether they have been the victim of rape, incest, or other abuse; their medical conditions and which medications they are taking or have taken in the past; whether they have taken illegal drugs; how much money they or their families have; whether they have declared bankruptcy; political contributions they have made; and past criminal convictions. [18] Although these questions invade the potential jurors' privacy beyond what could be asked in court of most accused people and witnesses, potential jurors are generally obligated to answer such questions publicly and truthfully in the hope that this information will help the litigants identify prejudice among jurors. [18] Brandborg v. Lucas (1995) held that jurors can be punished for contempt of court if they do not answer questions the court has determined are "reasonably calculated to discover an actual and likely source of prejudice, rather than pursue a speculative will-o-the-wisp", but not for questions that the court has not determined are potentially relevant to the case at hand. [21] [22]

Although it is technically possible for a potential juror to start legal proceedings about a question asked during voir dire, it is an impractical response, and the main defenses against intrusive questioning are the discretion of the judges, who typically allow any questions the lawyers want to ask, and the fear of the lawyers that a chosen juror may become biased against their side of the case because of their lack of respect for potential jurors during voir dire. [18] Additionally, Sinclair v. United States (1929) held that defendants may not hire private detectives to surveil jurors during a trial. [21]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

Voir dire is a legal term for procedures during a trial that help a judge decide certain issues:

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

In American and Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied. A peremptory challenge can be a major part of voir dire. A peremptory challenge also allows attorneys to veto a potential juror on a "hunch".

A struck jury is a multi-step process of selecting a jury from a pool. First potential jurors are eliminated for hardship. Second jurors are eliminated for cause by conducting voir dire until there is a pool available that is exactly the size of the final jury plus the number of peremptory challenges available to each side. Then the two sides exercise their peremptory challenges on the remaining pool, usually alternating. This procedure "has its roots in ancient common law heritage".

Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, summonses are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom.

Jury duty or jury service is a service as a juror in a legal proceeding. Different countries have different approaches to juries. Variations include the kinds of cases tried before a jury, how many jurors hear a trial, and whether the lay person is involved in a single trial or holds a paid job similar to a judge, but without legal training.

Scientific jury selection, often abbreviated SJS, is the use of social science techniques and expertise to choose favorable juries during a criminal or civil trial. Scientific jury selection is used during the jury selection phase of the trial, during which lawyers have the opportunity to question jurors. It almost always entails an expert's assistance in the attorney's use of peremptory challenges—the right to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason—during jury selection. The practice is currently unique to the American legal system.

Racial discrimination in jury selection is specifically prohibited by law in many jurisdictions throughout the world. In the United States, it has been defined through a series of judicial decisions. However, juries composed solely of one racial group are legal in the United States and other countries. While the racial composition of juries is not dictated by law, racial discrimination in the selection of jurors is specifically prohibited. Depending on context, the phrases "all-white jury" or "all-black jury" can raise the expectation that deliberations may be unfair.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

Strike for cause is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.

Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case about racial issues in jury selection in death penalty cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 7–2 majority, ruled that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove African American jurors violated the Court's earlier holding in Batson v. Kentucky. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

Wainwright vs. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning a criminal defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, who argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the state of Florida. He argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally hand-picked a jury during the voir dire process. This was because certain people were excused from the jury because they admitted pre-trial, that their decision of guilty or not guilty toward capital punishment would be swayed due to personal or religious beliefs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States constitutional criminal procedure</span> United States constitutional criminal procedure

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.

Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases.

Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that re-examined the Batson Challenge. Established by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Batson Challenge prohibits jury selectors from using peremptory challenges on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and sex. Powers expanded the jurisdictions of this principle, allowing all parties within a case, defendants especially, to question preemptory challenges during a jury selection, regardless of race. This holding was protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ Hans, Valerie P.; Jehle, Alayna (2003), Avoid Bald Men and People with Green Socks - Other Ways to Improve the Voir Dire Process in Jury Selection, vol. 78, Chi.-Kent L. Rev., p. 1179
  2. ↑ Kellermann, Kathy. "How helpful is expanded voir dire in civil cases?". Online Jury Research Update. Retrieved August 10, 2023.
  3. ↑ Moran, Gary; Cutler, Brian L.; Loftus, Elizabeth F. (Jul–Sep 1990), Jury selection in major controlled substance trials: The need for extended voir dire, vol. 3, Forensic Reports, pp. 331–348
  4. ↑ Rule 24, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
  5. ↑ "About the Trial Process" . Retrieved 2022-03-24.
  6. ↑ HR Alker Jr; C Hosticka; M Mitchell (1976), "Jury selection as a biased social process", Law & Society Review, Law and Society Review, 11 (1): 9–41, doi:10.2307/3053202, JSTOR   3053202
  7. ↑ Pizzi, William T.; Hoffman, Morris B. (2001), Jury Selection Errors on Appeal, vol. 38, Am. Crim. L. Rev., p. 1391
  8. ↑ Smallbridge, Gary C. (1977), Military Jury Selection Reform Movement, The, vol. 19, A.F. L. Rev., p. 343
  9. ↑ Cavise, Leonard L. (1999), Batson Doctrine: The Supreme Court's Utter Failure to Meet the Challenge of Discrimination in Jury Selection, The, vol. 1999, Wis. L. Rev. 501
  10. ↑ Underwood, Barbara D. (1992), Ending Race Discrimination in Jury Selection: Whose Right Is It Anyway, vol. 92, Colum. L. Rev., p. 725
  11. ↑ DH Zeigler (1978), "Young Adults as a Cognizable Group in Jury Selection" (PDF), Michigan Law Review, 76 (7): 1045–1110, doi:10.2307/1287973, JSTOR   1287973
  12. ↑ "The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials". JournalistsResource.org, retrieved May 15, 2012
  13. ↑ Anwar, Shamena; Bayer, Patrick; Hjalmarsson, Randi (2012). "The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics . 127 (2): 1017–1055. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjs014 .
  14. ↑ Ronald Wright. "Yes, Jury Selection Is as Racist as You Think. Now We Have Proof". The New York Times - Opinion section. Retrieved December 4, 2018.
  15. ↑ The Jury Sunshine Project: Jury Selection Data as a Political Issue SSRN, 2018
  16. ↑ Levine, Dan (June 24, 2013). "UPDATE 1-U.S. court refuses to undo gay rights ruling in pharma case". Reuters. Retrieved July 4, 2014.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hannaford P. L. (2001.) "Making the Case for Juror Privacy: A New Framework for Court Policies and Procedures", State Justice Institute.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wilson, Melanie (2012-01-01). "Juror Privacy in the Sixth Amendment Balance". Utah Law Review.
  19. ↑ Thanawala, Sudhin (16 July 2016). "Judge reignites debate over researching jurors online". Associated Press News.
  20. 1 2 Christiansen, Erik A. (29 August 2019). "Jurors' Names and Addresses Must Be Disclosed after Trial". American Bar Association. Retrieved 2023-06-11.
  21. 1 2 "Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F. Supp. 352 (E.D. Tex. 1995)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-06-12.
  22. ↑ Gershman, Bennett L. (2021-09-10). Criminal Trial Error and Misconduct 3rd Edition. LexisNexis. ISBN   978-1-63284-046-2.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.