|
Post by Maggie on Sept 1, 2005 6:07:38 GMT -5
Has anybody here ever considered the impact that a "death qualified" jury has on the outcome of a trial??
Are they more biased towards the prosecution? IMO- they most definately are.
How is this legal? A "death qualified" jury is NOT one of my "peers".......
Thoughts anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 1, 2005 7:52:42 GMT -5
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 651 Brief Filed: 12/85 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Year of Decision: 1986 Issue: Whether the use of a death-qualified jury in a capital case is unconstitutional
Index Topics: Death Penalty (death qualified juries)
Facts: McCree was convicted of capital murder in Arkansas and sentenced to life without parole. Because the State originally sought the death penalty, eight prospective jurors were excluded from McCree's jury because they revealed that they would not impose the death penalty under any circumstances. McCree sought a writ of habeas corpus from the federal district court. He argued that social science data proved that the death-qualified jury that convicted him was conviction prone, in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court granted the petition and ordered the State to retry McCree. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, spending several pages of the opinion reviewing the social science literature and the testimony of the expert psychological witnesses from the habeas hearing. The Supreme Court granted review.
APA's Position: APA submitted an amicus brief arguing that: (1) the social science data tendered by respondent demonstrates that death-qualified juries are more pro-prosecution and unrepresentative than typical criminal juries and that death qualification impairs jury functioning; (2) the social science research has focused on the relevant categories of prospective jurors, including that subset of jurors excludable under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968); (3) social science research conducted over the course of three decades directly addresses the constitutional issues at stake and the data show that (a) death qualified juries are conviction prone, (b) the barring of Witherspoon excludable jury members creates unrepresentative juries, thereby implicating defendant's right to a jury composed from a fair cross-section of the community, (c) death qualification excludes a significantly large subset of the population, (d) those excluded through death qualification share common attitudes on issues related to criminal justice, (e) death qualification results in under representation on juries of blacks and women, and (f) the data suggests that death qualification interferes with the proper functioning of the jury; and (4) contrary to the States' criticisms, the social science data tendered by respondent satisfied applicable criteria for evaluating the soundness of scientific research.
Results: The US Supreme Court reversed on both grounds - - the claim regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community and the impartiality claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Regarding social science evidence, the Court did not condemn social science evidence in judicial decisionmaking as was urged by the States as amici. The majority found, however, several serious flaws in the social science evidence introduced by the defendant and relied upon by the courts below. The Court stated that even if the social science evidence was methodologically valid and adequate to establish that death qualification produces more conviction prone juries, nonetheless, the Constitution does not prohibit the States from using death qualified juries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PsycLAW Homepage
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 1, 2005 7:59:08 GMT -5
Sunday :: July 20, 2003 Death-Qualified Juries Excellent article about race and death penalty-qualified juries in today's New York Times, Facing a Jury of (Some of) One's Peers. We learned a new phrase from it--"bleaching of the jury"--
About the death penalty trial Ashcroft is forcing in Puerto Rico, 2 significant facts:
1. People who are not fluent in English are excluded from serving on federal juries/ In Puerto Rico, this means 1/2 to 2/3 of the country's residents are ineligible to serve.
2. Since capital jurors must be "death qualified", or willing to impose the death penalty in an appropriate case, death penalty opponents are not allowed to serve. Puerto Rico doesn't have a death penalty, it's against the Consitution there. At least another 11 to 17% of residents will be disqualified on this ground.
So what's wrong with death-qualified juries?
It has been shown to produce juries that are notably friendlier to prosecutors than jurors in murder cases where the death penalty is not sought. Studies have shown that juries in capital cases are more likely to believe that a defendant's failure to testify indicates guilt, more hostile to the insanity defense, more mistrustful of defense attorneys and less concerned about the possibility of convicting innocent people than a random sample of the population.
"There is a major bleaching of juries," said Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan. "Many more African-Americans are excluded than whites. The biggest demographic predictor of attitudes toward the death penalty is race."
We like this quote from former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1968:
Whatever else may be said of capital punishment," Justice Potter Stewart wrote... "it is at least clear that its imposition by a hanging jury cannot be squared with the Constitution."
In 1986, now Chief Justice William Rehnquist decided otherwise:
The Constitution, he said, forbids only the exclusion of distinctive groups like blacks and women. Barring groups of people defined only by shared attitudes is permissible. Justice Rehnquist rejected alternatives that might have addressed some concerns, like separate juries for the guilt and penalty phases of a trial or a single jury with extra jurors who could be weeded out based on their attitudes toward executions if a penalty phase was needed. The Supreme Court has since held that jurors who say they would automatically impose the death penalty for some crimes may also be excluded.
We'll end with this quote from former AUSA Jamie Orenstein, one of the principal prosecutors in the Oklahoma City bombing cases, now in private civil practice:
One of the basic ideas about the death penalty is that it's supposed to reflect the moral judgment of the community." Excluding opponents of the death penalty from capital juries makes gauging that moral judgment more difficult.
Posted Sunday :: July 20, 2003| Death Penalty
|
|
|
Post by janet on Sept 1, 2005 8:49:23 GMT -5
One of the most serious questions in sentencing by jury in that particular phase of a capital trial when the jury is asked to determine "future dangerousness". In the instance of Randall Dale Adams v Texas (and this is but one example), prosecutors introduced 'expert' psychiatric testimony from Dr. James Grigson. Dr. Griegson spent fifteen or twenty minutes interviewing Adams, a man to whom he had never spoken before. Grigson's testimony lasted for more than two and one-half hours and was both certain and persuasive. He asserted that Adams was a psychopath and would unboudtedly kill again. On the basis of this testimony, the jury sentenced adams to death.
Adams was released from prison in 1989, having neither killed nor injured anyone. He committed no crimes at all. If he had been executed, there would have been no way to proved that Grigson was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by erick on Sept 1, 2005 15:38:12 GMT -5
It would not work to have a jury system where jurors are unwilling to consider all applicable punishments. What if a juror was unwilling to give a child molester anymore than 1 year in prison? Should said juror be allowed to influance the sentence?
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Sept 2, 2005 8:26:34 GMT -5
This sounds like a debate, therefore I'm moving it. hugggz, Suzanne
|
|
|
Post by moghirl on Sept 2, 2005 8:45:55 GMT -5
This sounds like a debate, therefore I'm moving it. hugggz, Suzanne Is this not the 'Debate Area' am gettiing confused now
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Sept 2, 2005 9:36:53 GMT -5
I moved it here....it's all good.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Sept 3, 2005 10:54:10 GMT -5
A jury should be charged by the judge of sentencing options. Incidentally, one sentencing option is not the death penalty. Having stated that fact, juries DO influence sentences!!! They determine sentences from options presented to them. That is why my personal belief is that bifurcated trials present often incompetent juries with decision they are completely unqualified to make. When it involves life or death, a 'jury of one's peers' sounds good in theory, however, in practice, is impossible to attain.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Sept 11, 2005 8:40:26 GMT -5
In a system that is fair the jury will be picked at random from the offical list of voters, the only reasons to bar people would be that they know the defendant or the victims, or that they said they could not give a balanced decision. It is no more right to have people who would always vote for a death sentence regardless than people with the opposite view.
Given that Pros claim to be in a majority of two to one, and majority decisions being allowed, what do they have to fear from juries selected from random?
Best wishes, Judy
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Sept 11, 2005 22:35:14 GMT -5
In a system that is fair the jury will be picked at random from the offical list of voters, the only reasons to bar people would be that they know the defendant or the victims, or that they said they could not give a balanced decision. It is no more right to have people who would always vote for a death sentence regardless than people with the opposite view. Given that Pros claim to be in a majority of two to one, and majority decisions being allowed, what do they have to fear from juries selected from random? Best wishes, Judy Excellent post!
|
|
|
Post by attitude on Sept 14, 2005 2:33:20 GMT -5
The reason why Pro Death Penalty supporters would be concerned is that to sentence a person to death you need to have a unanimous verdict and not a majority verdict. So applying the law of averages here you would have 4 antis and 8pros on the jury. So no one will be sentenced to death , despite it being the law of the land
|
|
|
Post by yellerdawg8 on Sept 14, 2005 21:47:58 GMT -5
May God wouldn't that be a miracle and a plus for us anti's if we found a jury like that. But, being that the great state of Texas choose to dismiss you if you do not believe in the DP, what are the chances anyone gets a fair shake here.
|
|
|
Post by maryny on Sept 14, 2005 21:51:19 GMT -5
Getting a fair shake as you put it would definately not be if the jury is allowed to consist of even one anti. An anti would not vote for the sentence of death therefore that would not be fair in a trial. A fair trial would in fact consist of all pros.
|
|
|
Post by yellerdawg8 on Sept 14, 2005 22:01:04 GMT -5
Only in the eyes of a pro. I being on the other hand a devoted anti. Guess we are at a stand-off. Thank you for your reply. It is ok to disagree as long as we respect, huh?
|
|