Feb 23

final-jur-e headline

SCOTUS Declines to Hear Case Challenging Dismissal of Jurors Based on Religion

The New York Times reports that the nation’s high court will not take up a Missouri case challenging the dismissal of jurors who indicated that their religious upbringing promoted the idea that homosexuality was a sin. In Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney, No. 23-203, Ms. Finney alleges that the Department of Corrections was responsible for her coworker’s discriminatory behavior toward her, which began after Ms. Finney entered a same-sex relationship with the co-worker’s former spouse. During jury selection, Ms. Finney’s lawyer asked potential jurors about their religious beliefs related to sexuality. The questions included: “How many of you went to a religious organization growing up where it was taught that people that are homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else because it was a sin with what they did?” In declining to hear the case, Justice Alito wrote that he remained “concerned that the lower court’s reasoning may spread and may be a foretaste of things to come.”

Civil Grand Jury Service Is the Last Caretaker of Local Government

Peter Magnani for The East Bay Times opines about dangers that can derive from the shortage of those willing to serve on California’s civil grand jury. Magnani writes that civil grand jury service is especially important in an era when local newspapers are reducing staff and thus lack the capacity to monitor communities and city governments. He points to the role grand juries in Alameda and Contra Costa played in finding that more than 17 million Bay Area Rapid Transit riders rode the system annually without paying fares, which cost the system more than $25 million dollars. Since then, BART has modified its entrance gates so that they are harder to bypass. Magnani encourages those who would like to see government work better to volunteer for service on their county’s civil grand jury.

North Carolina Appeals Court: Jurors Can't Be Replaced Once Deliberations Begin

U.S. News & World Report reports that North Carolina’s Court of Appeals found a state law passed in 2021 that permits the use of an alternate juror for deliberations if an original juror cannot continue (provided the jury is told to restart their deliberations) is unconstitutional. The appellate court found that this law was incongruent with the state constitution’s requirement that no one can be convicted of any crime “but by the unanimous verdict of a jury in open court.”

SCOTUS: Georgia Can't Retry Man for Murder Despite Split Verdict

Courthouse News Service reports that the Supreme Court ruled against Georgia in its quest to retry Damian McElrath for murder on the basis of conflicting jury verdicts. McElrath was charged with malice murder, aggravated assault, and felony murder for the murder of his mother. A jury found that he was not guilty of malice murder by reason of insanity, and guilty but mentally ill of felony murder and aggravated assault. Georgia contested that these verdicts presented both a logical and legal impossibility; the Georgia Supreme Court agreed and held that the verdicts were void. On appeal, the nation’s high court reversed and found that under the Fifth Amendment, “inconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's Background as a Public Defender on Display

As reported above, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Damian McElrath in McElrath v. Georgia. Writing for the majority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned what Slate describes as “a strong endorsement of the right to trial by jury-including a jury’s unquestionable authority to acquit a defendant for any reason it chooses, including a belief that the charges are unjust.” The author suggests that KBJ’s background may be why Chief Justice Roberts assigned the opinion to her. While serving as a public defender, Justice Brown Jackson sought to help clients with having their convictions overturned.

Why Won't They Come?

Join us for an illuminating webinar on the perplexing issue of juror nonresponse and failure to appear in Texas’s most populous county. Partnering with NCSC’s Center for Jury Studies and RTI International, the Harris County District Clerk embarked on a groundbreaking study to understand why jurors fail to respond to summonses or appear in court. Through surveys and interviews, they uncovered a multitude of challenges faced by jurors, from not receiving summonses on time to encountering barriers to serving without knowing how to request accommodations. In this webinar, panelists will delve into the study’s findings and offer practical recommendations to address the high nonresponse and failure to appear rates. Gain valuable insights into the complexities of jury service and discover actionable strategies to enhance juror participation and engagement.

Panelists:

Marilyn Burgess, District Clerk, Harris County, Texas

Paula Hannaford-Agor, NCSC Center for Jury Studies

Venita Embry, RTI International

Date/Time: March 21, 2024, 11:30 am to 12:30 pm ET