Challenges to the Composition of the Jury Pool

A fox should not be on the jury at a goose’s trial. – – Thomas Fuller

A right to trial by jury is guaranteed under both state and federal law.   In a civil matter, a trial by jury is provided for under Article 1, Section 20 offox and goose 2, and the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  These provisions  assure a citizen the right of trial by jury in matters tried at law.

In criminal matters,  the right to trial by jury is provided for  under Article 1, Sections 13 and 19 of Indiana’s Bill of Rights and the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.   The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana guarantee defendants in criminal cases and litigants in civil cases the right to a trial by jury.   Indiana law states that all litigants have the right to a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community and that all eligible citizens shall have both the opportunity and obligation to serve.

Questions of equal protection under Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be implicated when segments of society are disproportionately  excluded from service in the formation of the jury pool, or as through the exercise of a party’s peremptory challenges to systematically eliminate a particular class of people from the jury on the basis of race, creed, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Indiana Jury Rule 18 addresses how the Court is to deal with such problems.To secure an impartial jury, the Sixth Amendment requires that the venire be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 480, 110 S. Ct. 803, 107 L.Ed.2d 905 (1990); Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600 (1935), (held that an African-American defendant is denied due process rights if the jury pool excludes African-Americans). The Impartial Jury Clause of the 6th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution require that the jury pool  fairly represent  a  “cross-section of the community”.   Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), (held that exclusion of women (other than members of the League of Women Voters who had taken a jury training class) from the jury pool violated the Impartial Jury Clause of the 6th Amendment, and not, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, under the  “cross-section of the community” analysis).   Questions of equal protection under Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Bill of Rights and the impartiality requirements of Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Bill of Rights may  be implicated when segments of society are disproportionately  excluded from service in the formation of the jury pool.

Ultimately, the quest is to obtain a fair and impartial jury.  This goal influences our court rules, statutes and case-law.  I hope this information provides a good starting point for any inquiries or challenges you need to make in securing a fair jury for your client.

Advertisements

About Richard A. Cook

Richard Cook graduated from Purdue University in the Economics Honor Program in 1979 and obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Valparaiso University School of Law in 1982. Following law school, Richard served as a federal law clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. In 1984, Richard began working as Deputy Prosecutor for the Lake County Prosecutor's Office and from there, served as Assistant U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. There he handled a number of complex criminal matters and jury trials. While there, Richard received the Chief Postal Inspector's Special Award and a letter of commendation from the U.S. Attorney General for his work prosecuting a major money order fraud scheme being perpetrated out of the Indiana State Prison system. Since leaving the U.S. Attorney's office in 1989, Richard has focused primarily on civil work and is currently a member of the firm Yosha Cook & Tisch in Indianapolis. Richard is also a member of the ITLA, IBA and the ABA, as well as, a fellow for the American College of Trial Lawyers. He is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Posted on November 20, 2014, in Jury Selection, Trial Advocacy and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: