Jury Selection
1. Batson v. Kentucky (1986, USA)
Facts:
During jury selection, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to exclude African American jurors.
The defendant, Batson, argued this violated his right to an impartial jury.
Legal Issue:
Can peremptory challenges be used to exclude jurors based on race?
Decision:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that racial discrimination in jury selection is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
Established the Batson challenge, requiring prosecutors to provide race-neutral explanations for peremptory strikes.
Significance:
Landmark case ensuring racial fairness in jury selection.
Courts now actively monitor peremptory challenges to prevent discrimination.
2. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994, USA)
Facts:
J.E.B. challenged the use of peremptory strikes to exclude jurors based on gender in a child custody case.
Legal Issue:
Does gender-based exclusion of jurors violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that peremptory challenges cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, extending the Batson principle.
Significance:
Ensures gender equality in jury selection.
Parallels racial discrimination cases and reinforces impartial jury requirements.
3. R v. Ford (1989, Canada)
Facts:
Ford, a criminal defendant, challenged the exclusion of Indigenous jurors from the jury pool in his trial.
Legal Issue:
Are systemic exclusions of certain groups from juries permissible?
Decision:
The court ruled that systematic exclusion of Indigenous persons from juries violated the right to an impartial jury under Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Significance:
Introduced awareness of systemic bias in jury selection.
Emphasized that jury composition must reflect the community and avoid discrimination.
4. R v. Sherratt (1991, UK)
Facts:
Defendant Sherratt argued that potential jurors were biased due to pretrial publicity.
Legal Issue:
Can the trial court exclude jurors for actual or perceived bias during selection?
Decision:
The court held that judges have the authority to question jurors and exclude those demonstrating potential bias to ensure a fair trial.
Significance:
Judicial oversight during voir dire ensures impartiality and fairness.
Pretrial publicity or personal connections can justify exclusion.
5. Turner v. Murray (1986, USA)
Facts:
Turner, an African American defendant, was on trial in a predominantly white community. The defense requested jurors be asked about racial bias.
Legal Issue:
Should potential jurors be questioned specifically about racial prejudice in capital cases?
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that in capital cases, it is appropriate for courts to question jurors about racial prejudice to ensure impartiality.
Significance:
Highlights voir dire as a tool to detect implicit biases.
Courts have flexibility to tailor questioning based on the context and case sensitivity.
6. R v. Kokopenace (2015, Canada)
Facts:
Kokopenace, an Indigenous defendant, argued that systemic underrepresentation of Indigenous people on juries violated his right to a fair trial.
Legal Issue:
Does systemic underrepresentation of Indigenous people in jury pools violate the right to an impartial jury?
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that systemic underrepresentation alone does not automatically invalidate a jury, but it raises concerns about fairness and inclusion.
Judges should take steps to ensure diverse jury pools where possible.
Significance:
Balances procedural fairness with practical limitations in jury selection.
Encourages proactive judicial measures to minimize systemic bias.
7. R v. Aziz (1993, UK)
Facts:
Aziz, a defendant of South Asian descent, alleged that members of the jury pool had been excluded due to ethnicity.
Legal Issue:
Can jurors be excluded based on ethnicity, and how should courts respond?
Decision:
The court ruled that excluding jurors solely based on ethnicity undermines the fairness of the trial.
Reiterated that voir dire and challenges must be race-neutral and non-discriminatory.
Significance:
Reinforces principles from Batson and similar cases internationally.
Ensures jury represents a fair cross-section of the community.
Key Principles in Judicial Interpretation of Jury Selection
Non-Discrimination: Race, gender, ethnicity, or religion cannot be used as a basis for peremptory challenges (Batson, J.E.B., Aziz).
Impartiality: Voir dire protects the right to a fair trial by unbiased jurors (Sherratt, Turner).
Systemic Fairness: Courts acknowledge underrepresentation of minorities as a concern and encourage measures to improve diversity (Ford, Kokopenace).
Judicial Oversight: Judges play a key role in monitoring challenges and questioning potential jurors.
Contextual Flexibility: Questioning may be tailored in sensitive cases, like capital punishment or highly publicized trials.
RELATED Blog
comments