ABA Releases Revised "Principles for Jury & Jury Trials"
In 2005, the ABA House of Delegates approved Principles for Juries and Jury Trials. It was the signature project of then ABA President Robert J. Grey, Jr. Upon its publication Mr. Grey stated, “The goal [of the Principles] was to create a national set of comprehensive principles to encourage state and federal courts across the country to review their jury procedures and to provide guidance concerning ‘best practice’ procedures.” Since then, the Principles have been the centerpiece of numerous bench/bar conferences, continuing education programs, and law school classes. They have often been cited in legal publications and, on occasion, in court briefs and judicial opinions. The Principles are now proving to be a living document that evolves to meet current needs and challenges. After years of work by the ABA Commission on the American Jury, a House-of-Delegates-approved revision of the Principles is now published and available online. The new version contains the original 19 principles with additional emphasis on jury pool diversity and the role of technology in trial management. The commentaries accompanying each pPrinciple contain updated authorities. Perhaps most significant, there is a new Principle 20: “Safeguarding the Physical Safety and Psychological Well-Being of Jurors.”
6th Federal Circuit Finds Batson Violation in State Court Case
In Upshaw v. Stephenson, Mr. Upshaw was convicted of armed robbery by a Michigan jury. He sought post-conviction relief in a state appellate tribunal and then federal courts. Last month, a federal circuit court found the trial judge committed constitutional error in applying the Batson doctrine to a case where the prosecutor used his peremptory strike to eliminate six Black jurors from the venire. Among other reasons, the panel found the trial judge improperly volunteered his own justification for the prosecutor’s strike. The circuit court found the court's statements impermissibly signaled to the prosecutor that this was a reason the court was prepared to find credible and never explored the prosecutor's real reason. “These actions prevented the state from satisfying its burden at step two of Batson. By substituting its own reason for the state's, the trial court failed to fulfill its obligation to ‘determine whether the prosecutor's proffered reasons are the actual reasons’ and to decide ‘whether the State was ‘motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent.’”
Making Time for Juror Appreciation
What are your plans for Juror Appreciation Week? Many courts designate May 1, International Law Day, as the day (or week or month) to publicly recognize jurors for the critical role they play in the American justice system. Other courts do so in conjunction with the Fourth of July holiday. Regardless of the date, this is the occasion for state and local courts to issue proclamations, public service announcements, and op-eds in local print media about the importance of juries and jury trials and to provide jurors with small tokens of recognition for their service. For courts that are still planning their 2024 Juror Service Appreciation events, the NCSC Center for Jury Studies invites you to participate in an online workshop to share ideas and strategies from 3 to 4 pm ET on Tuesday, April 9, 2024. Register for this event here.
Citizen Writes Op-Ed Criticizing Jury Selection in Georgia Capital Case
Patricia McTier, a Georgia nurse, here recounts her experience being removed from a venire for what she calls a “questionable reason.” During voir dire in a murder case, she was asked about her knowledge of the case and her views on the death penalty. She answered that she knew next to nothing about the case and agreed she could impose the death penalty if necessary. Days later, Ms. McTier learned she had not been selected to serve on the jury but was never told why. Nearly all (seven of eight) Black people in the courtroom, including Ms. McTier, were struck, while just three of 34 potential white jurors were removed. In the years following the trial and death sentence, Ms. McTier learned that the prosecutor had a longstanding practice of using his “peremptory strikes to discriminate against Black and female potential jurors.” She also learned the DA’s explanation for removing her from the jury pool: he claimed she would have been biased against his office because he was prosecuting one of her husband’s relatives. But Ms. McTier writes that she “didn’t know anything about [the relative’s] possible criminal involvement or legal trouble” and that “nothing going on with him would have had any bearing on [her] verdict in [the] case.” The fact that the prosecutor never asked her any questions about the relative now leads Ms. McTier to believe that her race was the true reason she was excluded. she is “deeply troubled” by the prospect that the defendant faces a possible execution date despite having “a trial marked by such blatant racial discrimination.” While she cannot know if the verdict would have been different had she sat on the jury, she does “know that justice was not served by the prosecutor’s efforts to remove Black people from the jury.” With all the information that has come to light, Ms. McTier writes, “It seems unconscionable to allow death sentence to stand.” The United States Supreme Court is currently considering whether to accept the defendant’s petition for certiorari, which argues he should receive a new trial.