Deck 6: Justice on the Bench Trial and Adjudication in Adult and Juvenile Court

Question 1

The Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that a defendant is not entitled to a jury "composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race." Although these rulings establish that states are not obligated to use racially mixed juries, they do not prohibit states from doing so. In fact, a number of policy makers and legal scholars have proposed reforms that use racial criteria to promote racial diversity on American juries. Some have suggested that the names of majority race jurors be removed from the jury list (thus ensuring a larger proportion of racial minorities); others have suggested that a certain number of seats on each jury be set aside for racial minorities. How would you justify these reforms to a state legislature? How would an opponent of these reforms respond? Overall, are these good ideas or bad ideas?

Answer 1

Justification for the reforms to a state legislature:
In a country, people prefer to be with their own kind of people. They feel comfortable and secured when they are with the same kind of people. There is a minimum chance for conflict of interest.
In state legislature, it will unite the people who are of same kind. There will not be any conflicts. Even though there is a conflict between them, they will not make a fuss about it. Instead, they will try to resolve among themselves. There will be more unity between the juries of same kind when compared to the previous situations.
Justification against the reforms to a state legislature:
These kinds of reforms are meant for discriminating someone by mentioning their race and culture. Racism is highly unethical and immoral. It will stop the police officials from preventing the entire community. The unity between the communities will break. There will be more conflicts between both the communities. It is highly immoral which may lead to violence.
The overall justification about the reforms:
The reforms are a bad idea. If they are separated by considering their race and culture, they should be given equal priority. Removing the people with the majority jurors is extremely immoral. Racism is bad and unethical for the society. It will take the society to dangerous level where there will not be any unity within the community.

Question 2

Evidence suggesting the prosecutors use their peremptory challenges to preserve all-white juries in cases involving African American or Hispanic defendants has led some commentators to call for the elimination of the peremptory challenge. What do you think is the strongest argument in favor of eliminating the peremptory challenge? In favor of retaining it?

Answer 2

Peremptory challenge:
Peremptory challenge is defined as the defendant's objection to the proposed jurors. There is no need to give the reasons for objections.
Peremptory challenge should be eliminated for the below reasons:
• Prosecutors use the peremptory challenge in a racially discriminatory manner
• Peremptory challenge is introduced for the fair and impartial treatment to the overall community. However, raising objection against the jury without any obligation to provide reason for the objection is a major disadvantage of peremptory challenge.
Justification for retaining the peremptory challenge is as follows:
• Peremptory challenge will uphold fair and impartial treatment for all kind of people.
• It will help the defendant to raise an objection over the jurors without any obligation to provide reason.
Conclusion:
There must be a proper reason to refuse the proposed jurors. The reason should not be racially biased. The party to the case should follow some rules and regulations while using peremptory challenge.

Question 3

Given that the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule that the peremptory challenge violates the right to a fair trial and is therefore unconstitutional, are there any remedies or reforms that could be implemented?

Answer 3

Peremptory challenge:
Peremptory challenge is defined as the defendant's objection to the proposed jurors. There is no need to provide a reason.
The peremptory challenge violates the fair trial:
• In peremptory challenge, a juror can be avoided by considering their gender or race. It is immoral to discriminate someone by considering his or her race and gender.
• In peremptory challenge, there is no need to provide any reason or explanation to reject a juror from the trial.
• Peremptory challenge ensures fair treatment of defendants. However, it is not fair for the jurors. Eliminating a juror because of their sexual orientation, race, and gender is not a fair treatment for jurors.
Alternative for peremptory challenge is as follows:
'Challenge for cause' will be the best alternative for peremptory challenge. In 'challenge for cause', the defendant can eliminate a person from the jury with a justifiable reason or explanation. Race, gender, and sexual discrimination should not be the reason for challenge. Unlike peremptory challenges, here the number of challenges is not limited.
Conclusion:
According to Mr. X, 'Challenge for cause' is far better than peremptory challenge. There must be a justifiable explanation and reason from the defendant's side to eliminate a proposed juror.

Question 4

Should a white defendant be allowed to challenge the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans and other racial minorities from his or her jury? Why or why not?

Question 5

Why do you think the U.S. Supreme Court decided to intervene in the Ed Johnson case (see "Focus on an Issue: The Lynching of an Innocent Man")?

Question 6

In this chapter, we present a number of examples of lawyers who "played the race card" in a criminal trial. Almost all of them involved prosecutors who appealed to the potential racist sentiments of white jurors. But what about defense attorneys representing African American defendants who attempt to appeal to the potential racist sentiments of African American jurors? Does this represent misconduct? How should the judge respond?

Question 7

Why does Paul Butler advocate "racially based jury nullification"? Why does Randall Kennedy disagree with him?