skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 30768 Find in a Library
Title: TRIAL BY JURY - THE NEW IRRELEVANT RIGHT (FROM CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS REVIEW, 1974 BY JON S SCHULTZ AND JON P THAMES - SEE NCJ-30751)
Author(s): A ASHMAN; J MCCONNELL
Corporate Author: William S Hein and Co, Inc
United States of America
Date Published: 1974
Page Count: 18
Sponsoring Agency: William S Hein and Co, Inc
Buffalo, NY 14209
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF TRIAL BY JURY IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EFFECT OF THREE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON THE NATURE OF THIS RIGHT.
Abstract: THE DECISIONS ANALYZED ARE WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA (1970), IN WHICH THE COURT HELD THAT JURIES COMPOSED OF FEWER THAN TWELVE JURORS ARE PERMISSIBLE IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES IN STATE COURTS; JOHNSON V. LOUISIANA (1972) AND APODACA V. OREGON (1972) THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEMAND THAT VERDICTS IN STATE CRIMINAL CASES BE REACHED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ALL JURORS. THE JUDICIAL ANTECEDENTS OF THESE DECISION, AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS THEMSELVES, ARE REVIEWED. CHANGES IN THE UNANIMITY AND JUROR NUMBER REQUIREMENTS MADE AND/OR ATTEMPTED IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ARE SUMMARIZED AND A CRITICAL APPRAISAL IS MADE OF THE JOHNSON AND APODACA DECISIONS. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ALTHOUGH A FEW STATES HAVE MOVED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED JURORS, NONE HAS AGREED TO ACCEPT LESS THAN UNANIMOUS VERDICTS IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASES. THE AUTHORS CONTEND THAT, WHEN ALL FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER - THE LACK OF STANDARDS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF JURORS NEEDED TO CONVICT, THE QUESTION OF FULL DELIBERATION OF ALL JURORS ON THE EVIDENCE, THE NEED TO CONVICT ACCUSED PERSONS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN JURY DECISIONS - THE JOHNSON AND APODACA DECISIONS APPEAR TO BE GIGANTIC STEPS BACKWARD.
Index Term(s): Critiques; Judicial decisions; Juries; Right to fair trial; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=30768

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.