Individual
Jury Trial Analysis
Write a 1,000- to 1,500-word paper in which you articulate how a defendant’s rights at trial can
be assured. Include how to assure a defendant is provided the following:
· The right to a speedy trial
· The right to an impartial judge
· The right to an impartial jury
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Individual
Jury Trial Analysis
Write a 1,000- to 1,500-word paper in which you articulate how a defendant’s rights at trial can
be assured. Include how to assure a defendant is provided the following:
· The right to a speedy trial
· The right to an impartial judge
· The right to an impartial jury
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Individual
Jury Trial Analysis
Write a 1,000- to 1,500-word paper in which you articulate how a defendant’s rights at trial can
be assured. Include how to assure a defendant is provided the following:
· The right to a speedy trial
· The right to an impartial judge
· The right to an impartial jury
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Jeffrey Stahlberger CJA/364 September 8, 2014 Dr. Bobby Kemp JURY TRIAL ANALYSIS 2
Jury Trial Analysis In the United States the creation of the constitution protects our personal rights. Not everyone knows what rights they have when charged with a crime. The creation of the Sixth Amendment protects our right to a speedy trial, public trial, and an impartial jury. (Farlex, 2014)
Speedy Trial One question that remained unanswered until 1966 was what constitutes a speedy trial. The Supreme Court finally addressed the Sixth Amendments speedy trial provision in the court case of United States v. Ewell. From this court case the Supreme Court identified three distinct advantages of having a speedy trial. (1) It prevents excessive incarceration; (2) it minimizes anxiety experienced by the accused as a result of a publicized accusation; and (3) it prevents damage to the defendants case resulting from too much delay (Worrall, 2012, pg.410). In 1972 the Court added to the previous reasoning, in the case of Barker v. Wingo, by examining how an accused that cannot afford bail must remain in custody. In the case of Barker, Mr. Barker could not afford bail and spent 10 months in the local jail during his trial. The Court looked at the negative long term effects of prolonged exposure to time behind bars. The Court stated: Lengthy exposure to these conditions has a destructive effect on human character and makes the rehabilitation of the individual offender much more difficult (Worrall, 2012, pg. 410). In addition the loss of wages that Mr. Barker was forced to endure greatly affected his financial status. Society and the government also benefit from a speedy trial, first being the opportunity for a guilty verdict to be secured quickly. (Worrall, 2012) Secondly a speedy trial reduces the time the accused has out on bail to possible commit other crimes. Lastly if a JURY TRIAL ANALYSIS 3
defendant cannot afford bail a speedy trial reduces the amount of time the accused spend in jail, which lowers the financial cost on the government. (Worrall, 2012). Even though the Sixth Amendment guarantees a person the right to a speedy trial there are some restrictions. The Accusation rule, created from United States v. Marion, holds that the Sixth Amendments guarantee to a speedy trial attaches only after the person (or persons) has been accused of a crime (Worrall, 2012, pg. 410-411). The Court further explained that the act of being accused of a crime does not necessarily mean formal charges have to be filed. Being arrested and held to answer on a criminal charge is enough for a person to be accused of a crime. (Worrall, 2012)
Impartial Judge The Sixth Amendment protects our right to a speedy trial and an impartial jury, but what about an impartial judge? The Supreme Court has held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to trial by an impartial judge (Worrall, 2012, pg. 415). This right applies in both a bench trial, where a judge decides the accuseds fate, and in the standard jury trial. In the court case of Tumey v. Ohio (1927) the Supreme Court first decided on the matter of an impartial judge. In the case of Tumey v. Ohio the judge overseeing the trial was also the major. Since the judge was the major he was receiving the fines and fees that he was levying against those convicted in his courtroom. (Worrall, 2012) Because of these facts the Supreme Court ruled that due process is violated when the judge has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case (Worrall, 2012, pg. 416). A similar case Ward v. Monroeville, in which the judge was the mayor, though the money from the fines went to the towns budge, in which JURY TRIAL ANALYSIS 4
the mayor had access to. In contrast, Dugan v. Ohio, the judge was the mayor, but it was ruled that there was no violation because he was on the board for city commissions, meaning he had access to the money, though did not have sole control of it. (Worrall, 2012). These decisions by the Supreme Court have made a positive impact on the accused right to an impartial judge. Impartial Jury While deciding what makes a judge is impartial is fairly easy as shown above. Determining what constitutes an impartial jury can be much harder. Federal courts have always recognized the right to a jury trial; it was not until Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) that this right extended to state courts. (Worrall, 2012) Furthermore the Supreme Court noted that the right to a jury trial is an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge (Worrall, 2012, pg. 418). While the right to an impartial judge applies to all cases the right to impartial jury does not. Not all court cases have juries. The petty crime exception, created from Baldwin v. New York, says the right to a jury does not apply to petty crimes. The court argued that the disadvantages, onerous though they may be, of denying a jury trial for a petty crime are outweighed by the benefits that result from speedy and inexpensive nonjury adjudication (Worrall, 2012, pg. 418). Lastly, from the case Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas (1989), an impartial jury is not required for anything that requires less than a 6 month sentence. The saying knowledge is power really hits home when it comes to knowing your rights when arrested. The U.S. government has laws in place to protect our personal rights from people who would abuse them. Knowing your rights can greatly impact the outcome of your case. The best way to protect your rights is to know if a violation is taking place and to fight for it to be restored. JURY TRIAL ANALYSIS 5
JURY TRIAL ANALYSIS 6
References Farlex. (2014). Sixth Amendment. Retrieved from http://legal- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sixth+Amendment Worrall, J. (2012). Criminal Procedure From First Contact to Appeal (4th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.