|
2004/11/16, 11:19 AM
I watched a video in one of my psych classes today regarding false memories, false confessions. After the trials, jurors were interviewed and I now have the following questions but no time to do any research.
1. Are we supposed to be tried by a jury of our peers and what is the legal definition of "peer"?
2. Who has the responsibility for deciding if someone is our peer?
3. Does the definition and practice still uphold the principles it was originally intended to uphold?
I've asked these questions of my forensic psych class because it's jammed with CJ majors but haven't got a response yet.
Thanks for any help!
--------------
Anni
*******
Hard work must have killed somebody
|
|
|
|
2004/11/16, 11:31 AM
Anni, jury selection is a process between the judge and the two attorneys. The judge can bounce a juror I think in an unlimited fashion for a large number of reasons. The two attorneys have a limited number of challanges that they can make. Once they use up their alotted number of challanges, thats it so they use caution in taking exception. I think the process is called voir dire. Don't hold me to the spelling.
Incidently, you have no peers sweetie.
--------------
I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol
Charlie
|
|
2004/11/16, 12:27 PM
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” (6th Amendment)
Not only does the Sixth Amendment serve impartiality as a principle of the right to trial by jury, which is as applicable to the States as to the Federal Government, but also the 14th and 5th. Prior to the Court's extension of a right to jury trials in state courts, it was firmly established that if a State chose to provide juries they must be impartial ones.
“Impartiality is a two-fold requirement. First, the selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment. This requirement applies only to jury panels from which petit juries are chosen, and not to the composition of the petit juries themselves. In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a `distinctive' group in the community;
(2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this under representation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process. Thus, in one case the Court voided a selection system under which no woman would be called for jury duty unless she had previously filed a written declaration of her desire to be subject to service, and, in another it invalidated a state selection system granting women who so requested an automatic exemption from jury service. While disproportion alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie showing of unlawful exclusion, a statistical showing of disparity combined with a demonstration of the easy manipulability of the selection process can make out a prima facie case.”
The Supreme Court has reiterated several times that defendants are not entitled to a jury of any particular composition, though Congress has implemented the constitutional requirement by statute in federal courts by the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968. The Court has never invoked the fair cross-section principle to invalidate the use of either for-cause or peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, or to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels, to reflect the composition of the community at large. The explanation is that the fair cross-section requirement is a means of assuring, not a representative jury (which the Constitution does NOT demand), but an impartial one (which it does).
Hope that helps! :)
**Selected info gathered from usconstitution.gov
--------------
Michael
Trample the weak; hurdle the dead!
Chaos, Panic, Disorder.... Yes, my work here is done!
rev8ball@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/11/16, 12:45 PM
Excellent guys! This is very helpful.
Can we conclude from this that jury selection is a misnomer, that rather the process is one of deselection?
If juries are only deselected from a pool of registered voters, what if only 60% of the eligible individuals in the cross-section are registered? Does that jury pool still constitute a representitive cross-section?
--------------
Anni
*******
Hard work must have killed somebody
|
|
2004/11/16, 02:44 PM
Michaels response best addresses your last question of representative cross section. It is deselection except for the fact that the lawyers can only challange a finite number for their own purposes. The judge can boot perspective jurors in an almost unlimited manner.
Lawyers I know and books i've read on the process are over the place as far as how much difference jury selection makes. There are some really good books out there by ex-prosecutors and defense attornies which back this up. Read some of Robert K Tannenbaums books. He is a retired NY city prosecutor who was head of the criminal division and later the homicide division for the NY DA.
Most trials aren't what they seem to be and the machinations and politics will blow you away. Hopefully Mzakal will throw into this too. He has great insights in most things.
--------------
I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol
Charlie
|
|
2004/11/16, 05:49 PM
Thank you Charlie. I will get the books that you suggest. As I go through my studies of psychology and begin to narrow my focus I find that I am drawn to Forensic Psychology. This discussion was very helpful and enjoyable. Thank you again Charlie, and thank you Michael.
--------------
Anni
*******
Hard work must have killed somebody
|
|
2004/11/20, 12:19 AM
If we are truly entitled to a jury of our peers, shouldn't Robert Blake's jury be 12 homicidal actors??:big_smile:
--------------
I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol
Charlie
|
