Removing Unvaccinated Citizens from Jury Pool Is Lawful
In United States v. Colon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that a lower court's sua sponte decision to strike unvaccinated individuals from a courthouse venire during the COVID-19 pandemic did not violate a condition included in the defendants’ right to a fair trial. Writing for the panel, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., said the trial judge’s orders only impacted the composition of the petit jury chosen to hear the criminal case, and not those in the broader jury pool. Therefore, it wasn't improper to eliminate several unvaccinated jurors under the Sixth Amendment’s requirement of a fair cross-section. The court conceded that the strikes took place “in a somewhat unusual process,” due to the pandemic, at a pretrial conference after the venire was put together but before the clerk of court assembled panels.
Florida Moves Closer to Non-Unanimous Verdict in Capital Case Penalty Phase
The Jur-E Bulletin earlier noted efforts afoot in the Sunshine State to make death sentences more likely. NBC Channel 15 in Madison, Wisconsin reports Florida will soon no longer require unanimous jury recommendations for judges to impose death penalty sentences under a bill the legislature approved last week in reaction to the life sentence handed to the man who massacred 17 people at a Parkland high school. It now goes to Gov. Ron DeSantis for likely final approval. It will allow the death penalty with a jury recommendation of at least 8-4 in favor of execution. Only three states out of the 27 that impose the death penalty do not require unanimity. Alabama allows a 10-2 decision, and Missouri and Indiana let a judge decide when there is a divided jury. It will be interesting to watch for future cases raising the issue of whether the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Ramos v. Louisiana requiring unanimous culpability verdicts will eventually be applied to capital-sentencing decisions.
DA Admits His Attorneys Watched Jury Deliberations on CCTV—Guilty Verdict Now Questionable
The Seattle Times reports convicted murderer Robert Kraft is seeking a new trial after Oklahoma City District Attorney Matt Ballard acknowledged two of the prosecutors on the case watched jurors deliberate via a video feed into the courtroom. Kraft’s attorney last week filed a motion for a mistrial asserting it’s a miscarriage of justice that the two prosecutors illegally observed jury deliberations and gave the prosecution an advantage that he was not afforded. In a telephone interview, defense counsel M. J. Denham, Jr., said, “It’s like playing cards and not realizing you have a mirror behind you where they can see your hand. I just would never expect two people whose job is supposed to be to enforce the law to break the law. They are supposed to have a higher standard.” The former prosecutors reportedly resigned after the incident.
Jury Selection in Rappers’ Trial Clocks 4th Month of Effort—Still No Jury
Some weeks ago, the Jur-E Bulletin reported on the extreme difficulties being encountered in selecting a jury in a RICO Act prosecution of rappers Young Thug, Gunna, and other members of YSL (Young Slime Life). Jury selection began on January 4, and no end is in sight. According to the Atlanta Daily World, 1,200 jurors have been summoned since January. About 300 more jurors will be summoned on April 28 and a seventh group of jurors will report in May. Jury selection could extend to the summer with trial beginning sometime in June or July. There are several issues that are causing the jury selection snags. Most often potential jurors are claiming hardship. With over 300 potential witnesses, some expect the trial to last about nine months. As a result, potential jurors would need to commit to being available until the fall or winter of 2023. Relevant also, potential jurors are being questioned through a 37-page survey about things such as “Do You Listen to Rap” and “Do You Believe Rap Lyrics Are Autobiographical.” Because rap lyrics are likely to be used as evidence, the prosecution and defense are asking jurors about their fondness or dislike for hip-hop. Potential biases against or in favor of hip-hop appear to be a factor in choosing a jury.