Jury Selection in the NY Case against Trump

From YouTube: If a potential juror answers yes to this question about Trump, they'll be removed from jury pool.

Relevant terms: 

- criminal trial
- appeals court
- hush money
- 34 charges
- courtroom
- falsified business records
- jury 
- jury questionnaire
- jury pool
- bias
- jurors
- self reporting
- fair and impartial
- dismissal of jurors
- unable to serve
- for cause removals
- qualified jurors
- peremptory strikes
- hung jury
- beyond a reasonable doubt

From the Texas Tribune: Judge orders Ken Paxton trial moved out of Collin County and delayed

For 2306, and our look at the executive and judicial branches - and the criminal justice system.

- Click here for the article.

The judge in the securities fraud case against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has ruled that the trial should be moved out of Collin County and delayed.

The ruling to change venue is a major victory for prosecutors, who had argued Paxton and his allies had tainted the jury pool in Collin County, where he lives.

Judge George Gallagher said the trial, initially scheduled for May 1, will now be postponed until a new venue is determined.
Gallagher on Thursday denied two other motions: to dismiss the case and to delay it until prosecutors can get paid.

Paxton is accused of misleading investors in a company from before his time as attorney general, a legal saga that began more than a year ago. He recently beat a federal, civil case involving similar allegations, but the state charges remain — and they are more serious, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 99 years.

Gallagher's ruling on the venue is somewhat surprising. Weeks ago, Gallagher had signaled that he had wanted to at least try to move forward with the case in Collin County, where jury selection had been set to begin in a few weeks.

In court, prosecutors had sought to show collusion among Paxton, his team and his supporters aimed at creating a sympathetic jury pool. Paxton's lawyers had argued they had no ties to the alleged effort and that it wasn't affecting public opinion even if it existed.

From Vox: Delaware death penalty law declared unconstitutional by state’s highest court

Add this to our discussion of criminal justice, the Bill of Rights, due process, juries, state judicial systems, and political culture - among other things.

- Click here for the article.

Delaware’s death penalty is unconstitutional, the state’s Supreme Court declared on Tuesday.

As Jessica Masulli Reyes reported for the News Journal, the 148-page opinion struck down how the death penalty is applied in Delaware, declaring it a violation of the Sixth Amendment–sanctioned role of a jury. The ruling follows the US Supreme Court’s January decision against Florida’s death penalty on similar grounds.

So this doesn’t mean that Delaware’s death penalty is completely dead, since it could be revived by the state’s legislature if lawmakers alter how a death sentence is carried out.
But if Delaware’s legislature does not act, New Hampshire will become the only state in the northeastern part of the country that still allows the death penalty

From the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Tort Reform is Killing Trial by Jury

- Click here for the article.

Jury trials are disappearing in the State of Texas.

So-called "tort reform" is killing the people's right to a trial of their peers. Caps on penalties, increasing court costs, and skyrocketing usage of binding mandatory arbitration are taking cases out of the hands of juries and into the hands of judges and arbitrators.

Practically speaking, this means that tons of cases are never making it to a courtroom in the first place. In the last 15 years, Texas has seen a two-thirds drop in the number of jury trials along with a 30% rise in motions for summary judgment, all while the number of lawsuits has gone up by %25. This increases the power of judges and of defendants who have lots of resources (usually that means big bidniss, mmmkay). The little guy is getting shooed out the courthouse door rather than getting his or her day in court.

I believe this has a sinister, less-considered side effect too: ordinary people will forget (or never even know) what jury duty is like. Individuals may breathe a sigh of relief when they don't get picked for jury duty or when a jury trial is called off at the last minute in favor of arbitration, but collectively this hurts our democracy. Jurisprudence belongs to the people and reminds us that ordinary people are the backbone of the country. It's yet another civic duty that we are all too willing to throw away (and that powerful interests are all too happy to help us throw away in the name of efficiency).

Again, I really do doubt that people will be outraged by this, although they should be. The state of American education when it comes to the law and to civics is dismal.
There is no cheerful quip at the end of this blog. Our legal system is in serious trouble and we don't even realize it.

The Supreme Court looks at racial bias in the jury selection process

The case is Foster v. Chatman. It reminds us that the actions of state and local courts are subject to review by the national courts based on nationally defined objective ( that some states might resist). In this case - once again - it has to do with whether court procedures are in compliance with the requirement that states no deny persons the equal protection of the laws.

Here are links for official background on the case:

- Scotusblog: Foster v. Chatman.
- Oyez: Foster v. Chatman.

The issue as presented before the court:

Whether the Georgia courts erred in failing to recognize race discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case.

For more:

- Slate: Racism Highlighted in a Green Marker.
- Slate: Amicus: Strike Zone: When black jurors are removed from the pool, how do we know that it’s not because of their race?

Mistrial declared in Dallas murder case

From the Dallas Morning News, something for this week's look at the Texas judiciary and the criminal justice system:

Dallas County murder case ended in a mistrial Tuesday after the ex-girlfriend of a defendant accosted jurors in their deliberation room and showed them a picture of their 10-year-old son.

The woman held up the photo on her cellphone and told jurors that she wanted them to think about the boy as they heard the case, attorneys involved in the case said.

The breach brought questions about courthouse security and finger-pointing about which county department was responsible.

A spokeswoman for Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez said that court bailiffs, who work for the sheriff, were not at fault. The spokeswoman, Carmen Castro, said that the state district clerk’s office is responsible for that area — not the sheriff.

Castro said the Sheriff’s Department “had our areas covered.” Castro said because the security issue was not the concern of the sheriff’s office, she did not have many details about what happened.

Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons laughed at the idea his clerks were responsible for security.

“The jury room is under the control of the bailiffs. I can’t get in there, theoretically,” Fitzsimmons said. “It’s not part of my domain.”

Testimony had not yet begun in the case in which Robert Earl Oliver is accused of stabbing his friend Eric Franklin to death in October 2011. Franklin was stabbed in the neck with a butcher knife and nearly decapitated.

State District Judge Fred Tinsley, who questioned jurors and then declared the mistrial at the state’s request, could not be reached for comment.

Some Thoughts on Jury Duty

I've yet to build up sufficient information on the jury system for 2302s- which is a major omission I'll try to correct this semester - but there are a few thoughts on jury duty from Andrew Sullivan's site - and places he links to - to get something kick-started.

A writer at Slate wonders why people don't enjoy the opportunity to do something different for a few days, and offers this indictment: "I feel like as a society we've coordinated on a pointless anti-social norm that you're some kind of sucker if you're willing to just smile and do what the judge wants even though there are no really good self-interested reasons to want out." The author offers the following link as a guide for those who want to opt out: be verbal, be subtle and be biased. The story refers to the American Society of Trial Consultants.

A response points out that not everyone can take significant time off of work. This is especially true for service on grand juries - the people who decide what cases go to trial. It always seemed tome likely that this introduces tremendous bias in the criminal justice system. There are certain to be significant demographic differences between the type of people who can and cannot serve on grand juries. It seems likely that this has consequences for what cases do and do not go to trial.

The jury remains one of the more interesting institutions in American government - where else might the bulk of population have their opinions heard in the actual operations of government?

Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted

From the NYT, a story about jury nullification:

- Useful commentary.

Bad Jurors

From Texas Watchdog:

A list of bad jurors kept by prosecutors is not a public record, according to the state attorney general's office, a ruling that “flies in the face of open government,” according to Fort Worth Defense lawyer William Ray in the Star-Telegram.

Ray sought a list the Tarrant County District Attorney’s office keeps of jurors who have previously served and notes on why they would be unfit to serve again. Presumably, these jurors did not deliver a verdict favorable to the state.
Is this an encroachment by the executive on the independence of the judiciary?

For further reading: Juror Intimidation in Russia.

Ugly, Therefore Guilty

Speaking of civil rights and equal protection under the law.

Voir Dire

I just finally served on a jury. I've been summoned before, but this was the first time I went through voir dire and was selected (we ended up convicting the defendant). I'll post a summary of the experience at some point, but a few notes on voir dire.

I had no idea how involved a process this was. As some of you know, its how a group of 12 people are drawn from a larger pool of citizens, but its also the way that the court introduces potential jurors to both the judicial process and the players in a particular case. The judge, and prosecuting and defense attorneys all have the opportunities to introduce themselves and ask vague questions related to how one might be disposed to decide specific questions. The judge seemed keen on repeating the necessity for an unbiased approach to the case and honed in on people who seemed uncertain about whether they could in fact be impartial.

That was her constitutional role.

I also learned a lesson many learned before me. If you don't want to be on the jury, talk a lot during voir dire. I didn't, and was selected, which is what I wanted.

Juries, in my opinion, may be the most unjustly maligned institution in American government. To criticize juries is frankly to criticize the American people. In my opinion my fellow jurors, were thoughtful and conscientious. A great experience overall.

- Legal Definition.

Grand Jury Reform in Harris County

An opinion piece in the Chron argues for reform, but against the reform now being proposed.

Harris County stands out as one of the only major metropolitan areas in the country and one of the few counties in Texas that still uses a "key-man" system for selecting grand jurors. Under this system, a judge selects a "commissioner" who then seeks volunteers for grand jury service. Not surprisingly, the grand juries that emerge from this process tend to reflect the race, gender and political leanings of the commissioners who seat them.

Grand juries serve an incredibly important role in our system of justice. They are responsible for screening the prosecution's facts and deciding whether to issue felony indictments. Grand jurors must meet certain minimum qualifications and must be willing to serve for a term of up to two days a week for three months for $40 per day. In the past, commissioners were typically acquaintances of judges, court personnel or even law enforcement officers. One court, for example, appointed the court bailiff to nominate jurors; another asked the court reporter to handle the task; and a third court used county probation officers to drum up "volunteers."

Once selected by a system that was predominantly white and conservative, commissioners tended to surprise! gravitate toward other white conservatives. Grand jurors were culled from meetings of civic organizations or the pews of churches attended by the commissioners. As a result, the racial makeup of Harris County grand juries simply did not reflect the community at large.

The authors call for a selection process that mirrors the process for selecting people for petit juries.

How reliable is eyewitness testimony?

Considering how much of the evidence introduced in trial courts is testimony based on memory, it's worth pondering how much one's memory in fact corresponds to what in fact actually happened.

Here a neuroscientist discusses how the brain restructures itself when memories are called up:

Neuroscience now knows that every time we remember
our memories they are "reconsolidated," slyly remade
and reconfigured. The act of remembering requires protein
synthesis because we are literally remaking our past,
altering the cellular connections that define the
original memory trace.

We don't remember what happened, we remember what we want to have happened.

Maybe this is good news. You can have that happy childhood after all.

Why I like Juries

There on the front page of the New York Times you see photos of three key players in the Libby trial.

-Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor

-Dick Cheney, the defendant's boss

-Dennis Collins, the jury foreman

Where else can you see a private citizen lined up as an equal with high powered people like Fitzgerald and Cheney? Did I say equal? He and his fellow jurors were able to evaluate the arguments of the prosecutor and pass judgement on the defendant. Sounds like more than an equal.

A group of private citizens were able to check the power of the White House.

Jury Duty

Monday was the third time I've had jury duty since I've run out of excuses for not having to go, and once again I didn't make it to voir dire, but I'm coming to believe that the jury system is the single most important--though misunderstood, maligned and abused--institution in the American governing system.

Where else can the random population make a decision that has an immediate impact on the greater society? Though we are trained to think of the legislative branch as being the closest to the people--because of direct elections and all--the economics of the political process makes that unlikely. A solid track record of donations, or influence on turnout betray the reality that we are not politically equal.

Not so on a jury.

The random process that drags people to jury duty smooths out all social differences. It's worth wondering whether a similar process for staffing Congress or the Texas Legislature might create an institution more in step with the preferences of the people. The closest I got to actual service I found myself with about 30 others outside a court room while a plea bargain was worked out inside. When the judge called us into the court room to explain what happened he mention that our jury pool included another state judge and a county commissioner.

Juries have been muzzled over time unfortunately. In revolutionary America jurors would nullify laws they objected to. That might get one sent to jail these days, but why? Shouldn't jury decisions be considered just another check on the powers of the legislature? Or might this give commoners too much influence?

Funny how people seem to enjoy disdaining the decisions of juries--think OJ and the rest. Considering that the typical juror has more in common with the American public than the typical legislator, judge or executive official, we might really be disdaining ourselves, which may not be a bad thing of course. We can all stand to be criticized.

I've found this website to be provocative. Perhaps we can beat this dead horse in 2302 when we start in on the judiciary.