Access over 20 million homework & study documents
search

SNHU Legal Policy Fair Cross Section of Jurors Essay

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Law

School

Southern New Hampshire University

Type

Essay

Rating

Showing Page:
1/5
Running Head: 4-1 LEGAL POLICY SHORT PAPER: FAIR CROSS SECTION OF
JURORS 1
4-1 Legal Policy Short Paper: Fair Cross Section of Jurors
Tina Washington
Southern New Hampshire University
September 1, 2019

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/5
4-1 Legal Policy Short Paper: Fair Cross Section of Jurors 2
4-1 Legal Policy Short Paper: Fair Cross Section of Jurors
Issue Presented:
Is there a definitive way for the courts to determine that a defendant receives an impartial
cross-section of Jurors?
Short Answer:
When selecting a jury, the courts must confirm that there is an impartial selection of jurors. If
determined that all parties selected aren’t impartial, the courts must randomly select alternate
jurors. The court does go through a very rigorous process selecting each juror to eliminate
impartiality.
Statement of Facts:
Partiality and bias are common negative impacts towards the judicial system in regards to the
selection process. In Taylor v. Louisiana, Mr. Taylor was indicted on kidnapping charges by the
grand jury. Mr. Taylor filed a motion to dismiss the petite jury a day before his trial due to a
systematic exclusion of women which in turn denies him the right to trial by a jury of his peers.
There were 53% of women who were eligible in his district, but because the state of Louisiana
requires for women who want to be selected for jury trial would have to submit a written
declaration. Because of this, Mr. Tylor’s motion was dismissed and he was found guilty (Taylor
v. Louisiana).
Discussion:
It is unconstitutional for any state to systematically prohibit any woman from serving on a jury
trial. This provides an open door for defendants to argue that they are not being provided their
full rights to have a jury that is a cross- section of the community. It projects bias and prejudice.
The 6
th
Amendment states that a defendant has the right to an impartial jury in which Mr. Taylor
was not provided by the state of Louisiana (Taylor V. Louisiana 1975).

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/5

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running Head: 4-1 LEGAL POLICY SHORT PAPER: FAIR CROSS SECTION OF JURORS 4-1 Legal Policy Short Paper: Fair Cross Section of Jurors Tina Washington Southern New Hampshire University September 1, 2019 1 4-1 Legal Policy Short Paper: Fair Cross Section of Jurors 2 4-1 Legal Policy Short Paper: Fair Cross Section of Jurors Issue Presented: Is there a definitive way for the courts to determine that a defendant receives an impartial cross-section of Jurors? Short Answer: When selecting a jury, the courts must confirm that there is an impartial selection of jurors. If determined that all parties selected aren’t impartial, the courts must randomly select alternate jurors. The court does go through a very rigorous process selecting each juror to eliminate impartiality. Statement of Facts: Partiality and bias are common negative impacts towards the judicial system in regards to the selection process. In Taylor v. Louisiana, Mr. Taylor was indicted on kidnapping charges by the grand jury. Mr. Taylor filed a motion to dismiss the petite jury a day before his trial due to a systematic exclusion of women which in turn denies him the right to trial by a jury of his peers. There were 53% of women who were eligible in his district, but because the state of Louisiana requires for women who want to be selected for jury trial would have to submit a written declaration. Because of this, Mr. Tylor’s motion was dismissed and he was found guilty (Taylor v. Louisiana). Discussion: It is un ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4