Define trial impartial jury

Colorado , S. See Fed. As a result, the rule prohibits all juror testimony excepting for when the jury considers prejudicial extraneous evidence or is subject to other outside influence. See Pena-Rodriguez , S. Pless, U. As a result, the Court has rejected a Sixth Amendment exception to the rule when evidence existed that jurors were under the influence of alcohol and drugs during the trial. Likewise, the Court concluded that the no-impeachment rule prevented evidence from being introduced indicating that a jury forewoman had failed to disclose a prodefendant bias during jury selection voir dire and allegedly influenced the jury with such bias.

Shauers , U. In addition, while the no-impeachment rule, by its very nature, prohibits testimony by jurors, evidence of misconduct other than juror testimony can be used to impeach the verdict. However, in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado , the Court for the first time recognized a Sixth Amendment exception to the no-impeachment rule. In that case, a criminal defendant contended that his conviction by a Colorado jury for harassment and unlawful sexual contact should be overturned on constitutional grounds because evidence from two jurors revealed that a fellow juror had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward the petitioner and his alibi witness during deliberations.

The stigma that attends racial bias may make it difficult for a juror to report inappropriate statements during the court of juror deliberations. Inquiries into jury basis have arisen in the context of the imposition of the death penalty. In Witherspoon v. Illinois , 32 Footnote U.

The Court thought the problem went only to the issue of the sentence imposed and saw no evidence that a jury from which death-scrupled persons had been excluded was more prone to convict than were juries on which such person sat. Bumper v. North Carolina, U. Witherspoon was given added significance when, in Woodson v.

See also Adams v. In Wainwright v. Accord , Darden v. Wainwright, U. Kentucky, U. In Uttecht v. Brown , 43 Footnote U. Second, the State has a strong interest in having jurors who are able to apply capital punishment within the framework state law prescribes.

Third, to balance these interests, a juror who is substantially impaired in his or her ability to impose the death penalty under the state-law framework can be excused for cause; but if the juror is not substantially impaired, removal for cause is impermissible.

Fourth, in determining whether the removal of a potential juror would vindicate the State's interest without violating the defendant's right, the trial court makes a judgment based in part on the demeanor of the juror, a judgment owed deference by reviewing courts.

In White v. See S. See id. Exclusion of one juror qualified under Witherspoon constitutes reversible error, and the exclusion may not be subjected to harmless error analysis.

Subsequently, however, in part because of improvements in technology which caused much less disruption of the trial process and in part because of the lack of empirical data showing that the mere presence of the broadcast media in the courtroom necessarily has an adverse effect on the process, the Court has held that due process does not altogether preclude the televising of state criminal trials.

Chandler v. The decision was unanimous but Justices Stewart and White concurred on the basis that Estes had established a per se constitutional rule which had to be overruled, id.

The fairness of a particular rule of procedure may also be the basis for due process claims, but such decisions must be based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding such procedures. Under some circumstances it is a violation of due process and reversible error to fail to instruct the jury that the defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, although the burden on the defendant is heavy to show that an erroneous instruction or the failure to give a requested instruction tainted his conviction.

Taylor v. Kentucky, U. However, an instruction on the presumption of innocence need not be given in every case. Kentucky v. Whorton, U. See also Sandstrom v. Montana, U.

See also Cupp v. Naughten, U. It is important that jurors be neither sympathetic to or biased against either side before a trial begins. Therefore, they should be an open-minded or impartial jury. Potential jurors usually are selected from voter registration records for what is commonly referred to as jury duty. After a pool of potential jurors is selected, attorneys for both sides either suggest questions for the judge to ask, or they ask questions themselves of the jurors.

It is not a substitute for professional legal assistance. Before making any decision or accepting any legal advice, you should have a proper legal consultation with a licensed attorney with whom you have an attorney-client privilege.

For purposes of New York and New Jersey State ethics rules, please take notice that this website and its case reviews may constitute attorney advertising.