Does the Sixth Amendment Require a Jury Determination of Victim Restitution Amounts?
Feb 1
Jur-E Bulletin: May 4, 2018
Does the Sixth Amendment Require a Jury Determination of Victim Restitution Amounts?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s answer, “Not yet.” But Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor are strongly advocating for an eventual “Yes.” In Hester v. United States, the Supreme Court denied cert in a case raising the issue of whether the Apprendi doctrine should nullify a federal statutory provision authorizing a judge to set the amount of restitution to be paid by a convict to his victim. At the trial level, the judge made factual findings and ordered $329,767 be paid to the victim of a mortgage fraud. The defendants appealed that decision, lost at the circuit court level, and sought Supreme Court review. In their dissent from the denial of cert, the unlikely duo highlighted how, under Apprendi, a jury must determine the necessary facts to support a term of incarceration as well as the amount of a criminal fine. They vigorously urged the Court to extend that doctrine to criminal restitution determinations.
Receiving Prospective Juror Responses to Voir Dire Questions – D.C. Court of Appeals Defines the “Public Trial” Requirement
InBlades v. United States, the trial judge received answers to voir dire questions by way of having each prospective juror respond at the bench while a husher blanketed the courtroom with “white noise.” The appellate court concluded that, since the actual juror interview occurred in open court and a transcription was made, the procedure did not violate the constitutional requirement that the criminal trial be held in public. The case is noteworthy for the way in which the court defines the contours of the public trial requirement. The opinion draws a contrast to the husher system used in the Blades case and explains why individual voir dire questioning in the jury deliberation room or judicial chambers would violate the public trial mandate.
New Smart Boards to Enable Deliberating Jurors to Work Smarter Not Harder
At a recent e-Courts conference, we learned that there are new smart boards that can enable jurors to view and make illustrative drawings on digitized exhibits used in the deliberation room. A sample of one among several such systems can be found on Microsoft's website. If a court system can afford these innovations, perhaps juror deliberations will not only be more efficient, but also fun.
Canadian Journalist Slams USA’s Jury Selection Policies
F.T. Green writes from Toronto that the “toothless” Batson doctrine needs to be replaced with affirmative steps to place racial minorities onto trial juries. The author’s suggestions fly against well-settled U.S. case law. However, readers might enjoy the perspectives of an eloquent outsider.
Notice of new or upcoming articles, projects, symposia, and other jury-related events is appreciated. We strive to have to keep the "Upcoming Events" section relevant and up to date. When alerting us to articles published elsewhere on the Web, please include the URL. We cannot reprint articles from other sources without permission, and generally only provide a link.
Disclaimer: Opinions contained herein, as well as material appearing in external sites to which this publication provides links, do not necessarily reflect those of the National Center for State Courts. Presence of any such material should not be construed as support by the National Center for State Courts or any of its associations, affiliates, or employees.
Broken Links: Although the Editor makes an effort to ensure that links included in the newsletter are active at the time it is sent, there will be instances when readers find that links are broken or un-viewable for other reasons. Unfortunately, this will happen occasionally.
NCSC maintains exclusive use of its subscriber lists. Information contained therein will only be used by NCSC and is never distributed to other organizations. All communications from NCSC contain an opt-out provision for your convenience.