Who can, and is required by law, to do jury service? Why is it important to our legal system for every person to take jury service seriously?
The U.S. Constitution states in Article 3, Section 2 that “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed” and the 6th Amendment in the Bill of Rights states ” 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.” Why is it important to our system of government to have a trial by a jury of citizens? How does this protect us and our rights?
Which step of the pre-trial phase of a criminal trial involved the defendant being notified of the charges against him/her?
What is voir dire?
How does voir dire help achieve the Constitutional requirement of a fair and impartial jury? Why is it important to the workings of our judicial system to conduct voir dire and have an impartial jury?
What is the role of a juror in the courtroom?
In what way is jury service a right? A duty? AND a privilege?
Preventive detention is when?
What are the steps required for a grand jury trial?
Part II: You Be the Lawyer
Imagine you are a lawyer, either defense or prosecution, for ONLY two of the cases below. What types of questions will you ask your potential jurors in the voir dire? What kinds of experiences, ideas, prejudices, or prior knowledge will make them good or bad jurors? What can you ask to ensure that you have the most impartial group of jurors possible? Would you ask different questions if you were the defense rather than the prosecution? Why?
TASK: Make a list of 7-10 questions (for each case) you the lawyer will ask the pool of potential jurors for the two cases you selected. Write your questions from the perspective of either the defense or the prosecution. Keep in mind the various characteristics or perspectives that may affect a juror’s bias or objectivity. The Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago has one such set of questions that may help you consider the variety of questions to be asked at www.crfc.org/americanjury/lessons/voir_dire/voir_dire3.html“Voir Dire: A Simulation, Voir Dire: Creating the Jury”
Case 1: People v. Kevorkian (1994) 447MICH.436,527 N.W. 2d714 (Michigan)
Dr. Jack Kevorkian is being charged with two counts of murder after two women with terminal illnesses came to him and asked him for help committing suicide. He provided them with a device that could administer drugs and the women were successful in ending their own lives.
Case 2: Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt (2000) 211F.3d1121 (9th Circuit, Federal)
9 environmental activists and an environmental group are suing Humboldt County police officers for use of excessive and unreasonable force. In the fall of 1997, environmental activists staged three nonviolent protests against the logging of ancient redwood trees in the Headwaters Forest along California’s northern coast. During each protest, two to seven protesters linked themselves together using self-releasing lockdown devices known as “black bears.” Although the protesters were not physically daunting and posed no immediate safety threat, the officers used pepper spray to arrest the protesters. Defendants videotaped each of the arrests. The videotapes revealed that the officers did not attempt to negotiate with the protesters before applying the pepper spray. Sometimes the officers used Q-tips to apply the pepper spray to the eyelids of the protesters; other times the officers simply sprayed the pepper spray directly into the faces of the protestors. This occurred multiple times during each protest. The videos demonstrated that the protesters were in tremendous pain from the pepper spray. To ease the pain, the officers sprayed water on the protesters; however, the video showed that this actually caused more pain for at least one of the protesters. Summary from http://www.elawreview.org/summaries/constitutional_issues/headwaters_forest_defense_v_co.html
Case 3: Popov v. Hayashi (2002) S.F. Sup. Ct. CA (California)
Popov is suing Hayashi for conversion, injunctive reliefand constructive trust. (Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal property of another. There must be actual interference with the plaintiff’s dominion. Popov and Hayashi were sitting in the stands during a baseball game when Barry Bond’s record-winning homerun ball landed in Popov’s glove. Before he had full control of the ball, he was mobbed by a crowd and the ball went flying. It eventually ended up in the possession of Hayashi.