Study Calls "Fair Cross-Section" into Question
A recent study published in the Springer journal on Race and Social Problems ($) examines the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury, calling into question the Supreme Court's interpretation that jury pools should reflect a "fair cross-section" (FCS) of the community. The FCS standard seeks to ensure juror pools proportionally represent racial and ethnic groups. The U.S. Supreme Court established this standard in the Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) and Duren v. Missouri (1979).
The study makes the argument that a lack of diversity in many communities made it nearly impossible to meet the 10% absolute disparity threshold often used as a benchmark for an FCS violation, meaning that many jurisdictions struggle to create racially representative juror pools.
These findings suggest that current FCS jurisprudence, intended to ensure fairness, may inadvertently reinforce racial and ethnic inequalities within the criminal justice system. The study’s insights offer valuable context for court administrators, jury commissioners, and policymakers in understanding the broader implications of the FCS standard on jury selection practices and racial equity in the legal process.
Maryland Judiciary Explores Changes to Voir Dire; Publishes New Court Rule
The Maryland Judiciary has recently taken steps toward expanding the scope of voir dire in jury selection. A pilot program under Rule 16-310, effective October 1, 2024, will test expanded voir dire across several circuit courts in Maryland. Under the pilot, attorneys are permitted to pose questions aimed at identifying and removing jurors who are not impartial, as well as to gather information to guide the use of peremptory challenges.
The pilot comes after nearly 10 years of debate on the issue. The Maryland Judiciary’s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure unanimously voted to amend Maryland Rules 2-512 and 4-312 in civil and criminal cases. This amendment allows attorneys to actively participate in the questioning process, a shift from the traditionally limited, judge-led voir dire process. The proposal was spurred by Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader’s request in April 2024.
The program aims to gather data on the impact of expanded voir dire on jury selection efficiency, case management, juror satisfaction, and public trust. This two-year initiative will help develop guidelines for the potential statewide implementation of the expanded voir dire rules.
Attorneys Make Case for Jury Service
In a recent discussion with CBS Austin, attorneys Josh Fogelman and Aaron Von Flatern from FVF Law tackled the common irony of Americans expressing pride in voting yet often groaning at the idea of jury duty.
They pointed out the strong connection between these two civic duties, emphasizing that just as voting is essential for democracy, jury duty is crucial for maintaining a fair and just justice system. Fogelman and Von Flatern encouraged people to approach jury duty with the same sense of pride and responsibility that they bring to the ballot box, framing it as a unique opportunity to participate directly in the legal process.
The attorneys also highlighted how the deliberative process of jury duty can be an enriching experience that transforms those who serve. Jurors who are seated for a trial often come away changed, gaining insights into the justice system and feeling a deeper connection to their communities. Fogelman and Von Flatern argued that jury duty not only benefits the individual juror by providing a meaningful civic experience but also strengthens society by supporting a justice system that relies on the diverse perspectives of ordinary citizens. Through the collective work of jurors, the community's values and fairness are reflected in legal outcomes, ensuring that justice is both served and seen to be served.