Juries

Connecticut Looking to Expand Jury Rolls

In an effort to create more diverse juries, a Connecticut legislator has introduced legislation to remove the wait for convicted felons to serve and allow permanent legal residents to serve.  The bill also increases juror pay.  The proposals in the bill were based on the recommendations of a judicial task force created to reduce racial discrimination in the selection of  juries.

Patch.com: Bill Would Change Jury Duty In Connecticut

Ohio Verdict Stands Despite Use of Canadian Juror

Here is an interesting state case out of the 12th Appellate District of Ohio, Ohio v. Montiero. In Montiero, both defense counsel and the prosecution became aware, during voir dire, that one of the jurors was not a U.S. citizen, but rather a Canadian citizen. However, neither attorney struck the juror.

 

After the defendant was convicted for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence, he appealed based on the presence of the Canadian juror. Defense counsel argued that the presence of the Canadian on the jury created a structural error as the case was only decided by 7 out of the 8 qualified jurors selected to hear the case. The appellate court affirmed the defendant's conviction finding that the defense counsel should have struck the Canadian juror if he didn't want him to serve. Furthermore, the appellate court did not see the presence of the Canadian as a structural error. Rather, it found that the alleged error here involves a statutory violation under R.C. 2313.42, and not a constitutional right (see Section 5, Article I, Ohio Constitution: "The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate, except that, in civil cases, laws may be passed to authorize the rendering of a verdict by the concurrence of not less than three-fourths of the jury"), we cannot conclude the trial court's oversight involves structural error.

Massachusetts Looking to Limit Who Can Serve on Jury Duty

While most states are working to expand their jury rolls, Massachusetts appears to be moving in the opposite direction.  As this article explains, there are a variety of bills currently in the Massachusetts' legislature that would exempt several classes of people (full-time college or secondary students, pregnant women, health care providers and individual business owners) from jury service.  While there appears to be a logical justification for some of these categories, one has to really question why you would want to prevent young adults who are either in high school or college from serving as jurors.

Legislators seeking to create exemptions from jury service in Mass.

Jurors with Prior Criminal Convictions

Some prosecutors may want to rethink the long held view that jurors with criminal records favor defendants.  The article below looks at one juror (Brian Rathbun) who made it on to a jury despite his prior conviction for murder which he openly disclosed to all in court.  Despite having plenty of peremptory challenges to strike the juror neither side did nor was he dismissed for cause.  In the end, Mr. Rathbun along with his other jurors found the defendant guilty of murder after four hours of deliberation.  

Convicted murderer sat on jury

A convicted killer sat on the jury that convicted Jack Nissalke of murdering Ada Senenfelder.

Brian Rathbun, 46, had pleaded guilty in 1983 to second-degree murder for stabbing a man. He was among 12 Fillmore County jurors who took less than four hours Monday to convict Nissalke on four counts of first-degree murder for stabbing Senenfelder in 1985.
The judge, defense attorneys and prosecutors all knew about Rathbun’s crime when they chose to seat him. Attorneys said he met all the criteria for a good juror and that by having his civil rights restored, Rathbun also had a duty to serve if selected.

But the judge in the case, Robert Benson, was surprised Rathbun made it onto the jury. Other legal experts say they’re not aware of another convicted murderer sitting on a murder trial jury, even as the standard for who qualifies as an impartial juror is changing.

“That’s the most unusual thing I’ve ever heard of,” said retired Winona County district judge Dennis Challeen, who has heard of odd cases from thousands of judges in 31 years of teaching at The National Judicial College in Reno, Nev. “It’s that unique.”

Hearing Impaired Jurors

An Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled that it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to remove a hearing impaired juror for cause.  In Ohio v. Speer, the unanimous court held, "[i]f any doubt exists that a juror can adequately and completely perceive and evaluate all the evidence, whether because of a physical impairment, mental capabilities, or other reason that would interfere with the performance of a juror's duties, the trial court must excuse that juror for cause." This ruling appears to be in direct contrast to the growing trend of allowing hearing impaired individuals to serve as jurors.

Hearing no Problem for Deaf Juror

After 6 Years, Deaf Juror Takes Her Place

Significant Cases Involving Hearing Impaired Jurors

U.S. v. Dempsey 830 F.2d 1084 (10^th Cir. 1987)

Upheld the right of the interpreter, under oath, to interpret in jury deliberations. Hearing Impaired person was the jury foreperson.

State v. Marcham 770 P.2d 356, (Ariz. 1988)

Permitted Hearing Impaired woman to serve on jury

State v. Guzman 555 N.E.2d 259 (NY 1990)

Court instructed jury members and gave oath to interpreter before going into the jury room for deliberations