1. PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 12-1 Chapter 12 Jury This chapter examines Meaning of jury of one’s peers Selecting a jury panel How a jury is selected Challenging of potential jurors for cause Peremptory challenges Sequestering jury

2. PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 12-2 Jury of One’s Peers Sixth Amendment provides only for an impartial jury chosen from the judicial district in which the crime was committed. “of his peers” from Magna Charta Glasser v. United States—cross section of the community standard

3. PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 12-3 Taylor v. Louisiana Defendant may object to a jury panel that is not a true representation of a cross section of a community. Defendant may object to the exclusion of a certain class of people from the jury panel even if the defendant is not a member of that class.

4. PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 12-4 Juror Qualifications U.S. citizen Resident of judicial district for required period of time Most states require a person to be of “ordinary intelligence” Understand English Many states provide that the juror not have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors

5. PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 12-5 Challenging a Perspective Juror for Cause Common challenges for cause: Juror has preconceived ideas regarding the guilt or innocence of defendant Implied or actual bias Juror will not follow the judge’s instructions

6. PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 12-6 Death-qualified Jury Witherspoon v. Illinois Composed of jurors who have indicated that they are not opposed to the death penalty. Merely indicating reservations against the death penalty is not sufficient grounds to disqualify a juror member in a capital case. Wainright v. Witt

7. PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 12-7 Peremptory Challenges Each side has a limited number of peremptory challenges that may be used to remove jurors that one feels would not be favorable to his or her side. May not be used to exclude a class of persons because of their membership in a class, e.g., all women or all members of a minority group.

8. PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 12-8 Sequestering the Jury To protect jury members from possible outside influence in arriving at their verdict. Regulated by statute in most states. If not regulated by statute, then left to the discretion of trial judge.

9. PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 12-9 Batson v. Kentucky Did not eliminate all use of peremptory challenges to exclude from the jury persons of a defined group. At the request of the other party, the trial judge must hold a hearing when one party uses the peremptory challenges to exclude persons of a defined group. The party must provide satisfactory non-prejudicial reasons for excluding individuals in that class.