New York and New Jersey Bills Aim to Allow Most Convicted Felons to Serve on Juries
In a pair of Mid-Atlantic states, pending legislation would permit most individuals who have been convicted of a felony to serve on a jury. In most states, convicted felons are barred from jury service. New York Senate Bill S206A would allow such persons to fulfill jury service, provided that they have completed all sentencing requirements accompanying their felony conviction. In New Jersey, an amendment to existing state law would allow convicted felons to serve as jurors, except those convicted of murder and aggravated sexual assault. Wanda Bertram, a spokesperson for the Prison Policy Initiative, stated that New Jersey “has the chance to reverse one of the harshest jury exclusion laws in the country” and noted that “jury exclusion laws bar more than 20 million people nationwide from serving.”
Juries Are Capable of Deciding Damages in Class-Action Cases
Adam Levitt, author of the monthly column “Arguing Class Actions” for the National Law Journal, cautions in his latest column against the rush to “expertise” damages issues in class-action suits. He argues that an overemphasis of expert testimony not only drives up court costs, but also invades the province of the jury. In his view, it is not necessary to consistently rely upon experts to testify to damages in class-action matters. He believes doing so can discourage courts and trial lawyers from giving juries the tools they need to “rise to the task” of determining damages issues.
Prejudice Not Found Where Ankle Monitor Beeped During Jury Selection
In United States v. Wiley, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Chanel Wiley, who was convicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, was not prejudiced when her ankle monitor began beeping during voir dire. Multiple jurors reported difficulty hearing the judge; the beeping was loud enough to prompt the judge to order a recess and have the monitor removed. The court first reasoned that because an ankle monitor is not inherently prejudicial, the defendant needed to show actual prejudice to prevail on her claim. Wiley claimed that she had suffered actual prejudice because “had the jury not surmised she was at least guilty of some crime . . . that required her to have something on her that beeped . . . she would not have been convicted of conspiracy.” The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, pointing to Wiley’s acquittal on one count as evidence that the ankle monitor did not unduly influence the jury’s perception of her.
In Louisiana, Has Requiring Unanimous Jury Verdicts Resulted in More Hung Juries?
Nola.com reports that since Louisiana passed a constitutional amendment to require unanimity in jury verdicts for all felony trials almost six years ago, the rate of hung-jury verdicts has not increased as predicted by some. When the amendment was under public consideration, the state’s district attorneys voiced concerns that it would result in a sharp rise of hung jury verdicts. However, analysis done by Nola.com both before and after the change suggests that this concern was unfounded. Before the amendment, the newspaper found a hung-jury rate of 4.6% for nearly 2,000 cases tried before 12-member juries between 2011 and 2016. After the amendment’s passage, the outlet found a hung-jury rate of 4.4% for nearly half of the jury trials that have taken place since. However, some believe that requiring unanimous jury verdicts has had other effects—lengthier deliberations, increased caution in jury selection, and more “compromise” verdicts, whereby defendants are found guilty of less serious offenses because consensus is unattainable on more severe charges.