Right To Trial By Jury

Front 1

Where does the right to a jury come from?

Back 1

Guaranteed in Article III of 6A, incorporated against states by 14A.

Front 2

What is the role of a jury?

Back 2

To "take the law and apply the law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence." -- SPARF

Front 3

Does D have a constitutional right to a bench trial?

Back 3

No. This means that Court can condition D's waiver of jury trial on consent of P, meaning that if P doesn't consent, D has to face jury.

Front 4

Right to jury trial vs. right to counsel?

Back 4

Right to jury trial depends on possible sentence that could be imposed.

Right to counsel depends on actual sentence imposed.

Front 5

What is brightline rule for when there is a constitutional right to jury?

Back 5

Generally, presumption against right to jury trial where max punishment is 6 months or less imprisonment.

Front 6

Exceptions to brightline rule?

Back 6

Where there are additional statutory penalties beyond imprisonment that are so severe that they suggest legislature meant for crime to be seen as serious.

Front 7

Can you aggregate max punishments of multiple minor offenses to reach 6 month brightline?

Back 7

Generally no -- LEWIS. However, if charged offenses carry no statutory maximum, then actual sentence charged becomes important, in which case aggregation of minor offenses would matter. Cases suggest that sentence of exactly 6 months wouldn't trigger, has to be more than 6 months.

Front 8

Do jury functions change depending on severity of crime?

Back 8

No. Juries face same general rules and functions regardless of whether crime is misdemeanor or felony (BALLEW)

Front 9

How big must juries be?

Back 9

Fed and state juries must be comprised of 6 members or more (BALLEW). There are various policy arguments for larger vs. smaller juries.

Front 10

Must jury decisions be unanimous?

Back 10

Per 6A, federal jury decisions must be unanimous. States can get rid of unanimity requirement, though precedent suggests that where states have juries of only 6 people, unanimity always required.

Front 11

What are some policy arguments in favor of juries?

Back 11

1. Jury trials protect defendants.
2. Juries are not repeat players.
3. Jury trials better protections than bench trials.

Front 12

How might jury trials protect defendants?

Back 12

1. Protect against corrupt/overzealous prosecutors
2. Give defendants opportunity to appeal to "common sense judgement" of jury.
3. Reinforces our reluctance to give power over life and liberty to a single judge, as opposed to community.
4. Serves as check on government oppression.

Front 13

What might it be a good thing that juries are not repeat players?

Back 13

1. They aren't worried about "professional reputations" like judges and attorneys, so more focused on individual case.
2. Don't get blinded to details of current case due to seeing large amounts of similar cases, like judge.
3. Jury probably takes the case more seriously, whereas judge may see it as just like a lot of others.

Front 14

Why might a jury trial be better than a bench trial?

Back 14

1. Jury represents broader spectrum of opinions and ideas.
2. Helps sympathetic defendents appeal to compassion of jury.
3. Jury trial can be formal while still leaving room for advocacy skills of attorneys.

Front 15

What are some policy reasons why jury trials are a bad thing?

Back 15

1. Juries are not repeat players.
2. Jury trials inferior to bench trials.
3. Potential for jury nullification.

Front 16

Why is is bad that juries are not repeat players?

Back 16

1. Juries have no comparative grounds of other cases to reinforce which details in a given case are important, which aren't.
2. Since juries have to be insulated from outside world while serving, trials have to be compressed more.
3. Juries don't have to give explanations for their decisions, like a judge would.

Front 17

Why might jury trials be inferior to bench trials?

Back 17

1. A jury may be more easily confused/swayed by attorneys, rather than law and facts.
2. Sympathetic defendant may get judgment from jury that he doesn't really deserve under the law.
3. Juries may be more likely to be swayed by outside factors like media and publicity.

Front 18

What is "jury nullification"?

Back 18

Where jury, even after determining that based on facts and law that a person is legally guilty, decides to acquit anyway.

Front 19

How big of a deal is jury nullification?

Back 19

Richman calls it an "enormous power"--equated to ad hoc lawmaking.

Front 20

When does jury nullification occur?

Back 20

Atty's generally tell juries that they can't nullify, but juries do it anyway. There are good and bad nullifications, just part of the process. Rare for juries to nullify where defendant is obviously guilty.

Front 21

DUNCAN v LOUISIANA: Facts

Back 21

D convicted of battery, wanted jury trial but LA constitution only guaranteed jury in cases where capital punishment and hard labor sentences could be imposed. D appeals prison sentence on 14A DPC grounds.

Front 22

DUNCAN v LOUISIANA: Holding

Back 22

Finds for D, saying that 6A right to jury trial incorporated against the states via 14A. Every state guarantees jury trial in serious cases, fundamental part of American judicial system. SCOTUS doesn't provide bright line, just says that D's crime was punishable by 2 years in prison, so jury trial should be provided.

Front 23

BALLEW v GEORGIA: Facts

Back 23

D charged and convicted by jury of 5 people, claims that jury of 5 violates 6A/14A right to jury trial

Front 24

BALLEW v GEORGIA: Holding

Back 24

Juries must be 6 people or greater, based on empirical studies that show that smaller juries:
--less likely to foster group deliberation.
--more likely to make errors
--have more difficulty overcoming biases of individual members
--tend to favor the defense
--less likely to adequately reflect values and interests of whole community
--less likely to be insulated from outside intimidation/bribery

Front 25

BALLEW v GEORGIA: Dissent

Back 25

Powell: OK with holding, but jury trials should be allowed to differ from state to state, and concerned with majority's reliance on empirical studies.