Sixth Amendment: Defendant Rights Jury Trial

In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), the Supreme Court recognized that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice. The purpose of a jury trial is to (1) prevent oppression by the government, (2) provide a safeguard against a corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and/or a biased or compliant judge, (3) give defendants the opportunity to be tried by his or her peers, and (4) reflect reluctance to entrust the liberty and life of an individual to one judge. See id. Unfortunately, there are also drawbacks to being tried by a jury. The role of a jury is to remain impartial and apply the facts of a given case to the law. However, a jury is often composed of individuals with various backgrounds and experiences who have pre-formed judgments and opinions about an issue even before entering the courtroom. It is difficult for individuals to abandon their life-long belief systems in the courtroom simply because they are instructed by a judge to remain neutral. Thus, jury selection is an important screening process to ensure that a cross-section of the community is represented in a jury to provide the defendant with a fair trial by his peers.

Jury Selection

Jury selection is comprised of several stages. First, a large master list of prospective jurors is compiled. This list is usually derived from a combination of public and governmental sources, such as telephone books, DMV records, and voter registration lists. The master list is narrowed down to a smaller list, or venire, through random selection. These prospective jurors are asked to supply basic information about themselves, and may be disqualified or exempted based on the information. Prospective jurors may be disqualified based on lack of citizenship, underage status, and felony convictions while prospective jurors may be excused due to personal hardships, such as financial and physical infirmities. After the venire has been finalized, the next stage of jury selection consists of voir dire.

Voir Dire: Voir dire provides judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys with information that allows for the exclusion of prospective jurors based upon bias. During voir dire, the trial judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney ask prospective jurors questions in person. Depending on the jurisdiction, voir dire may be conducted by only the prosecutor and the defense attorney, only the trial judge, or all three. During voir dire, each party may introduce prospective jurors with the issues that pertain to a particular case in order to determine their personal opinions. The prosecutor and the defense attorney may challenge for cause against prospective jurors they believe to be biased. The trial judge then grants or denies the challenges based upon the information obtained from the prospective juror. The prosecution and the defense are also granted a certain number of peremptory challenges, which they can use to dismiss potential jurors without any explanation. Once both parties have exhausted their challenges, a jury is sworn in.

High-Profile Cases

In high-profile cases, it is difficult to find a potential juror who has not been exposed to the case at hand and has not already formed an opinion about the case or the parties involved. In such cases, extensive voir dire is conducted to choose an impartial jury. In ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90 (2nd Cir. 2004), there was a two-part voir dire process because of the difficulty in impaneling an unbiased jury due to the high level of media attention and publicity. In Stewart, the district court issued an Order excluding the media from attending the voir dire process and prohibiting the media from publishing or otherwise disclosing the identity of prospective jurors. Instead, the Order granted public access to the transcripts of each days voir dire, with the names of prospective jurors and their personal information omitted. The rationale for the media exclusion during the voir dire process was to encourage juror candor since there was a possibility that prospective jurors would not be entirely upfront in the presence of the press and media. Id.

In Stewart, ABC, Inc. and other news organizations argued that voir dire transcripts were insufficient substitutes for personal attendance since visual and audible emotions and gestures were lost in transcripts. Thus they argued that the Order was an infringement on their First Amendment right to access criminal proceedings since criminal trials are open to the press and the general public. Open criminal trials ensure safeguards for the defendant by providing public scrutiny of the criminal process. The Supreme Court has recognized that the guarantee of open public proceedings in criminal trials extends to the voir dire process. However, a proceeding will be closed if there is finding of (1) substantial probability that public will prejudice the defendants right to a fair trial, and (2) there are no reasonable alternatives to protect the defendants right to a fair trial. Id., at 98.

The court in Stewart concluded that an open voir dire proceeding would not prejudice the defendant because (1) members of the media had not conducted themselves improperly in covering the case; (2) prospective jurors were likely to have preconceptions about the defendants in any high-profile criminal case with or without the presence of the media; (3) the defendants were to be present in the voir dire process and if prospective jurors did not have problems being candid in the presence of the actual defendants, then they would not have problems revealing their biases in the presence of reporters as well; and (4) there werent any controversial issue to be probed in voir dire that might impair the candor of prospective jurors. Id., at 101.

On the other hand, in United States v. King, 140 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1998), the court decided differently in the issue of an open voir dire process. The Court issued an Order providing the press with limited access to the voir dire proceeding (the press was denied access to transcripts of individual voir dire questioning of prospective jurors until the jury was impaneled as well as the transcripts of voir dire from the first trial, which resulted in a mistrial). Id., at 78. In King, the Court reasoned that juror candor regarding the attitude toward the defendant was of particular importance because of the delicate issue area of possible racial bias. Id., at 83. While a prospective juror in Stewart would have no reason to shy away from showing bias and distaste against insider trading, a prospective juror in King would have reason to hide personal racial biases in the presence of media during voir dire, making the entire process ineffective and depriving the defendant of a fair trial by an impartial jury.

Safeguards

There are few remedies against prejudicial pretrial publicity. See Studebaker & Penrod, Pretrial Publicity: the Media the Law, and Common Sense, 3 Psychol. Pub. Poly. & L. 428 (1997.) First, a court may grant a continuance of a case in the hope of dissipating publicity over time. However, with a continuance, there is a risk of losing evidence, especially evidence pertaining to the memory of an eyewitness. Another option is to conduct an extensive voir dire process to weed out prospective jurors who show great influence from publicity. However, having an open voir dire proceeding may influence potential jurors to be indirect and insincere in their answers. Other possibilities include a change of venue (move the trial to another location) or a change of venire (bring in jurors from another jurisdiction), but a majority of the American public is exposed to high-profile cases such as the Stewart and King cases, regardless of where the alleged crime actually took place.

Conclusion: Sixth Amendment Right Threatened

In todays world always around-the clock news coverage and advancements in the media, the American public is within arms reach to any type of news, anywhere. Such developments in the media can pose a threat to a defendants Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by influencing the jury pool with premature information.