California High Court Clarifies Proper Voir Dire Questioning for "Death Qualifying" Prospective Jurors
In People v. Helzer, the Supreme Court of California addressed several issues raised by a death row inmate regarding voir dire in his penalty-phase-only jury trial. Among other things, the defendant argued a prospective juror who “would have difficulty applying the law” should not have been excused for cause by the trial judge. In denying this challenge, the court stated:
[N]ot all who oppose the death penalty are subject to removal for cause in capital cases; those who firmly believe that the death penalty is unjust may nevertheless serve as jurors in capital cases so long as they state clearly that they are willing to temporarily set aside their own beliefs in deference to the rule of law.
In addition, Mr. Helzer claimed his defense counsel was unlawfully denied the opportunity to ask jurors how they felt about evidence of his dismemberment of three victims. In also denying this claim, the court stated:
Death qualification voir dire “must not be so abstract that it fails to identify those jurors whose death penalty views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties as jurors in the case being tried. On the other hand, it must not be so specific that it requires the prospective jurors to prejudge the penalty issue based on a summary of the mitigating and aggravating evidence likely to be presented."
Federal Panel Finds State Judge's Ex Parte Communication with Deliberating Jury Harmless Error
In Jewell v. Boughton, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit examined a situation where a jury, after deliberating for two hours, sent a note to the trial court asking to see a “six-pack” line-up photo with Jewell's photo and photos of five others supposedly physically similar individuals. The Wisconsin trial judge sent the six-pack to the jury room, triggering a second note asking, “Is the ‘6 pack’ numbering system the same as the order as the photo/folder in the photo array?” The trial court responded, “No,” without consulting the parties. The jury also asked the trial court whether the defendant was released after questioning by police. Id. at 1323. The trial court responded, “No.” Id. To answer that question, the trial court had to make “infer[ences] from certain [trial] testimony.” Id. at 1325. While not as obviously problematic as relying on facts not in evidence, the inference “was [one] to be drawn by the jury as fact finder—not by the judge.” Shortly after these communications, the jury returned a guilty verdict. In the 7th Circuit’s habeas review of the state appellate court’s finding the judge’s error was harmless. It opined, “Few courts have considered whether ex parte communications like those at issue here are harmless. Those that have reached varying outcomes, reflecting room for fairminded disagreement. Importantly, all were on direct appeal.” The 7th Circuit then found the Wisconsin appeals court finding of harmless error was not unreasonable. The appellate court also rejected Jewell's habeas petition because the trial court's answer to the six-pack request was “factually correct” and it relied on “undisputed trial testimony.”
South Carolina Sheriff Warns of Jury Duty Scam
TV channel ABC25 Columbia reports Orange County Sheriff Leroy Ravenell is telling residents to avoid responding to robot calls demanding cash to protect those who missed jury duty.
Australian Legislators Decline to Change Hung Jury Policies
The Australian Associated Press informs us the provinces of New South Wales and Queensland have declined to change current law requiring juries to deliberate for at least 8 hours before being authorized to render an 11-to-1 verdict. They rejected halving the minimum wait time to 4 hours because there was insufficient evidence hung juries were a problem (currently 1 in 50 trials) and that the proposal would be effective in further reducing hung juries.
Does the 7th Amendment Require Juries in Federal Agency Adjudications?
Southwestern Law School professor Richard Lorren Jolly says “yes” in his just released Washington Law Review titled, The Administrative State’s Jury Problem.
Court Cannot Secure Enough Unbiased Jurors in Feeding the Homeless Prosecution
According to the Houston Chronicle, a Houston municipal court had to dismiss an entire venire panel because too many of the prospective jurors in the prosecution of Elisa Meadows for feeding homeless persons in public said they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking. The Chronicle article stated, “The busted jury panel illuminates the potential difficulties the city could face in enforcing its controversial law through a jury of peers. Roughly 90 tickets have been issued since March to volunteers with the loosely organized Food Not Bombs, which serves meals to people in need near Central Library. The city has yet to win a single case.”