Struck jury

Last updated

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 (including required alternates) plus the number of peremptory challenges available to each side. Then the two sides exercise their peremptory challenges on the remaining pool, usually alternating. [1] This procedure "has its roots in ancient common law heritage". [2]

Contents

Commentators have offered the following (and other) advantages of a struck jury over a "strike and replace" jury:

Alternative use

In older usage, and still in some jurisdictions a struck jury entails the formation of a jury pool of men who possess special qualifications to judge of the facts of a case. This was a common provision in U.S. insanity cases in the late 19th century. This usage is more often called a special jury . [4] It derives in part from the nomenclature in use in England in the 18th century.

United Kingdom

England

There were four different non-standard types of jury in England while operating under common law. The first three were first recognized by Parliament in 1730 under the general term "special jury". The fourth was known by the Latin phrase jury de medietate linguae.

These were:

  1. The gentleman jury – men of high social or economic status,
  2. The struck jury – principal landowners selected from a list of forty-eight names,
  3. The professional jury – members of special knowledge or expertise, and
  4. The party jury – a jury for defendants at special risk of suffering prejudice that included either only or half individuals of the same race, sex, religion, or origin. [5]

The special jury was used most extensively from 1770 to 1790, roughly during Lord Mansfield's tenure as Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, and declined thereafter. The first statutory requirements for special jurors were introduced in the Juries Act 1825, which required such jurors to be merchants, bankers, esquires, or persons of higher degree. [6] The special jury was eliminated in 1949, excepting the City of London special jury that remained available until 1971 for commercial trials in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. [7] The last case using a special jury occurred in London in 1950.

The jury de medietate linguae were abolished in the Naturalization Act 1870, which also gave foreigners the right to serve on juries. [8]

United States

This method may be used in many U.S. states. In some states it may be used for both criminal and civil cases, in other states for only one of the two kinds. In at least the state of Washington, it is the default method of choosing a jury. Some courts of appeals in the U.S. have determined that a struck jury offers greater opportunity to shape the final jury than the more common "sequential" (also known as "strike and replace" or "jury box") method, where peremptory challenges can only be issued against those jurors already seated, with no knowledge of the replacement.

The use of this system in murder cases, when properly enabled by statute, was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be constitutional in Brown v. New Jersey , 175 U.S. 172 (1899). [9]

Some methods of implementing a struck jury have handled waived challenges by eliminating the last identified member of the juror pool. In discrimination cases, this has been treated as identical to specifically challenging that juror. As a result, the now preferred method of handling waived challenges is to let the other side finish its challenges and then randomly eliminate jurors to get to the number needed.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, the special jury has become obsolete and is no longer used. The need to provide special expertise through selection of jurors was eliminated by the introduction of expert witnesses, expert advisors to the judge, and administrative tribunals. [10] The jury de medietate linguae from English common law was used for cases where a Māori was accused of a crime until it was abolished in 1961. [8]

Major or famous cases

King v. Zenger, 1735

In 1735, John Peter Zenger, a newspaper publisher, was arrested and tried for libel against the governor of New York, which was then a colony of England. His first two lawyers were disbarred for attempting to turn the trial into an indictment of the governor. The judge appointed as lawyer John Chambers, who was a placeman of the governor. He then moved for a struck jury. The first panel created was not properly prepared by the clerk out of the book of potential jurors, and was overturned by the judges before use. The second was properly prepared, but the clerk or sheriff subsequently reordered the names to put a partisan of the governor as the foreman, which was also overturned. After the local attorney completed the process of getting an unbiased jury, Andrew Hamilton took over the defense, and won an acquittal on the grounds that the printed statements were true. [11] [12] Based on the law at the time, this was also an example of jury nullification.

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">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.

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".

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.

In France, a cour d'assises, or Court of Assizes or Assize Court, is a criminal trial court with original and appellate limited jurisdiction to hear cases involving defendants accused of felonies, meaning crimes as defined in French law. It is the only French court that uses a jury trial.

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.

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), a criminal case. The Court applied the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as determined in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), in finding that such race-based challenges violated the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juries in England and Wales</span> Law of trial by jury in England and Wales

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.

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.

Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a young African American woman, Juror 16, from a defendant's drug trial jury in a California court case, based on her youth and on her alleged "eye rolling" in answer to a question. The defendant, Steven Martell Collins, challenged the striking of Juror 16, saying her exclusion was based on race, but the trial judge agreed that the prosecutor's reasons were race-neutral. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling, and the Federal District Court dismissed Collins' habeas corpus petition with prejudice. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating that the dismissal was unreasonable based, among other reasons, on the lack of evidence that the eye rolling had occurred.

Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in Spanish and English from juries that will consider Spanish-language testimony.

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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in United States juries</span>

The representation of women on United States juries drastically increased during the last hundred years because of legislation and court rulings. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, women were routinely excluded from jury service. The push for women's jury rights sparked a debate similar to that surrounding the women's suffrage movement. At the time, it permeated the media with arguments for and against. Federal and state court case rulings increased women's participation on juries. Some states allowed women to serve on juries much earlier than others, while also differing on whether women's suffrage also implied women's jury service.

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.

Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17–9572, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors during a series of Mississippi criminal trials for Curtis Flowers, a black man convicted on murder charges. The Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky that the use of peremptory challenges solely on the basis of race is unconstitutional. This case examined whether the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in how it applied Batson to this case. The Supreme Court ruled that Flowers' case fell under Batson and that the state inappropriately removed most of the potential black jurors during the trials.

References

  1. ↑ "Tips & Strategies – The "Struck System" Of Jury Selection". North Carolina Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved 10 May 2006.
  2. ↑ Swain v. Alabama , 380 U.S. 202 (1965). URL accessed on 10 May 2006.
  3. ↑ "Jury Selection". Arizona Supreme Court. Retrieved 10 May 2006.
  4. ↑ "Bouviers Law Dictionary". Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition. Retrieved 10 May 2006.
  5. ↑ "The Market for Justice, The "Litigation Explosion," and the "Verdict Bubble": A Closer Look at Vanishing Trials". Federal Courts Law Review – 2005 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 8. Archived from the original on 6 September 2006. Retrieved 10 May 2006., which cites Kristy Lee Bertelsen, From Specialized Courts to Specialized Juries: Calling for Professional Juries in Complex Civil Litigation, 3 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Advoc. 1, 9 (1998).
  6. ↑ Oldham, James (2004). English Common Law in the Age of Mansfield. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press. p. 22. ISBN   978-0-8078-5532-4.
  7. ↑ Law Reform Committee (December 1997). "Final Report – Volume 3". Parliament of Victoria . Retrieved 20 October 2006.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help), footnote #258
  8. 1 2 Neil Vidmar, ed. (2000). World Jury Systems. Oxford University Press. ISBN   0-19-829856-0., the first chapter of which is available at (PDF)
  9. ↑ "Brown v. State of New Jersey" . Retrieved 10 May 2006.
  10. ↑ "Report NO 7: The Structure of the Courts (NZLC R7)" (PDF). New Zealand Law Commission. 1989. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 20 October 2006.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. ↑ T. B. Howell, Esq. F.R.S. F.S.A, ed. (1816). A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Crimes and Misdemeanors From The Earliest Period to the Year 1783, With Notes and other Illustrations. Peterborough-Court, Fleet-Street, London: T.C. Hansard.
  12. ↑ Moglen, Eben. "Considering Zenger: Partisan Politics and the Legal Profession in Provincial New York" . Retrieved 26 May 2006.

Wikisource-logo.svg  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain :  Wood, James, ed. (1907). "Struck Jury". The Nuttall Encyclopædia . London and New York: Frederick Warne.

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.