The Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado case is about a man, Miguel Pena-Rodriguez, who committed crimes of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment seeking a new trial because of the racial basis of one of the jurors. In this case the petitioner is Miguel Pena-Rodriguez believes that his guilty verdict is not valid because of the racial biased by a juror, which is validated by two other jurors recounts. The state of Colorado, the respondent, will not grant a retrial because of Rule 606(b), which, “prohibits introduction of evidence regarding statements made in jury deliberations,” and therefore Miguel Pena-Rodriguez could not use the racial comment from the jurors in this retrial (Ballotpedia). However, Miguel Pena-Rodriguez argues that this rule cannot apply to cases of racial biases because it impedes on his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury (Ballotpedia). In Colorado, and in many states the Rule 606(b), otherwise known as the “no impeachment rule,” prevent jurors from having to …show more content…
If after the voir dire and the actual trial is over, and it becomes evident that race was a factor in the verdict by the jury, then the defendant has a right to ask the judge for a retrial based the racist statement made in jury deliberations. In the implementation of this new rule, the prosecutor of the defendant must abide by federal laws in the process of obtaining the racist remarks from the jurors. It is then once all the information has been submitted, it is up to the judge to decide whether or not the statements in question can call for the exception in the Rule 606(b). If the defendant or prosecutor breaks any laws in the process of gathering information, or if they try to blatantly abuse the exception to the Rule 606(b), then fines and/or prison sentences can be applied to both. However, in every case the judge needs to review all the material and the release his or her own
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
The Sixth Amendment states that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. However, Dexter was in jail for 25 years since 1982, and the appeal was still in process to the Supreme Court. Also, based on the jury selection on exhibit B, document one, there were only white people in the final jury, and African Americans were struck peremptory by prosecution. Dexter did not have an impartial jury because white people may favor his opposed side due to the different race. According to Batson v. Kentucky, the USSC also determined that peremptory challenges used to exclude jurors on the basis of race could be challenged by the defendant. It was not fair for Dexter to not have the same race people as him in the jury. In addition, the Sixth Amendment also says that both federal and state courts must provide a lawyer if the accused cannot afford to hire one. Even though Dexter did have an attorney, his attorney was not organized and prepared. The adequate attorney was not as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because he admitted that “he has not been to the crime scene, or viewed the crime scene photographs…has not viewed the prosecution’s witness list.” He had not done anything that could help defend Dexter. He didn't even call witnesses in the court to help Dexter. Strickland v. Washington also supports this because the court upheld the defendant’s conviction that his rights had been violated when his lawyer did not provide enough evidence to avoid the death
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Batson. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the prosecutor from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable to consider the state’s case ag...
Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected. This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning, anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law. The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects.
Reasoning: It was found that it is unconstitutional for the jury to not be provided the evidence and/or findings that could potentially increase the penalties that a defendant faces. The Court found that the Due Process Clause does, in fact, require that any evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt must be submitted. This ensures ""the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned."
The Santa Fe v. Doe case delineated the constitutionality of prayer and Christianity in America. The famous case that transformed how prayer in a public sphere is understood took place on March 28, 2000 and was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court reaching a verdict on June 18, 2000. The case was brought forward by a Mormon and a Christian family who believed that the Santa Fe High School practice an act which was a clear endorsement of a religion by the government as the school was a public school. it was supported by the school faculty.
The representation of the community must be represented by the jury pool. Thus, if a community is fifty percent African American, and the jury pool is predominately white then that would be in violation of the defendants Sixth Amendment rights. This is issue is a more recent common one than many think. As recently as the early 1960’s courts still used what was known as blue ribbon juries. This allowed mainly educated white males of high moral character to be selected as jurors, thus not a true representation of most communities. In 1967, a survey conducted by federal courts showed as much as sixty percent still relied on this type of selection. However, in 1968 the Jury Selection and Service Act, was accepted. “This system for federal courts, declaring it henceforth to be the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community. In 1975, the Supreme Court extended the ideal of the cross-sectional jury to state courts as well, rul¬ing that the very meaning of the constitutional guarantee of trial by an impartial jury required that the jury pool be a mirror image or microcosm of the eligible community population.” (Abramsson, 2008) With these landmarks passing the right to a fair and impartial jury should be guaranteed to all individuals facing a trial
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church
Stevenson, Bryan A. Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection. Rep. Montgomery, Alabama: Equal Justice Initiative, 2010. Print.
His jury was unaware of their ability to nullify a law. Another man in Louisiana is accused of the exact same thing, but this time, his jury is aware that they are able to nullify a law because it is unjust. The man in Oregon would be much more likely to be found guilty than the man in Louisiana simply because of the fact that the jurors weren’t aware of their abilities. In no way is a man being found guilty of a crime another man is found innocent for fair. It’s right there in the United States Constitution, “All men are created equal,” so they would both deserve the right to have the same verdict, not have the results be skewed simply based on the fact that one jury didn’t know their abilities.
The right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury is implicitly indicated in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A jury is a panel of citizens who hear and render a verdict in a case that is being tried in the community. Juries hear and render verdicts on both Civil and Criminal cases. Currently, juror qualifications are the following; are at least 18 years of age, a United States Citizen, reside in the location of jury service, are able to read and write in English, have no disqualifying mental or physical condition. Disqualifications for juror selection include the following; felony conviction or felonious charges where the punishment can result in imprisonment for a year or more. In addition to, qualifications and disqualifications, exemptions exist for jury service that depends on the locality of the venue. Federally, jury exemptions are of the following; public officers, members of professional police and fire departments, and members who are active duty in the armed forces. In addition, local exceptions for jurors are of the following; over 70 years of age, primary caretaker of a person who is unable to care for himself or herself, guardians who have a child younger than 12 years of age, where the guardian service on the jury would require leaving the child without supervision, a student in public or private secondary school, a person enrolled and in actual attendance at a higher education institution. Fairness was not always permitted in regards to having chosen a jury present at hearings, in the early times prejudice was highly common. In the past, groups excluded from jury service such as women, African Americans, and those of Hispanic descent. Previous group exclusions are deemed unconstit...