X. Jury Issues
A. Jury Instructions
B. Juror Bias/Misconduct
C. Voir Dire - Fair and Impartial Jury
E. Miscellaneous Jury Issues
Voir Dire - Fair and Impartial Jury
Sixth Circuit
• Voir Dire - Impartial JuryU.S. v. Guzman, 04-2497 (6/7/06)
> Defendant was charged with drug trafficking and during voir dire multiple jurors discussed the outcomes of prior criminal proceedings in which they or family members had some involvement. In 14 of the 15 instances mentioned, the person charged was convicted. Defendant claimed on appeal that permitting the entire jury panel to hear these responses indoctrinated the panel with the belief that criminal defendants are usually guilty.
* Holding: The court first held that there is no per se rule that district courts must follow in conducting voir dire. Rather, courts must simply conduct voir dire in a manner that ensures a fair and impartial jury. Second, the court ruled that the process applied by the district court in defendant’s case was not improper. Defendant was not able to show any actual prejudice in the voir dire process, and the court found that requiring each juror to answer questions about prior involvement with the justice system in camera would “cripple” the judicial process. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.
• Fair and Impartial Jury
Stewart v. Wolfenbarger, 04-2419 (11/9/06)
> Defendant was charged with murder and prior to trial the jury was subjected to a loud commotion from friends and relatives of the murder victim expressing their belief that defendant was guilty. The trial judge explained to the jury that the friends’ and family members’ statements were not evidence and asked if what the jury had heard would affect anyone’s ability to be fair and impartial. No juror replied in the affirmative and the trial proceeded. Upon defendant’s conviction, he appealed through the state system, and then filed a federal habeas petition. The district court ruled against defendant on the juror impartiality issue and he appealed.
* Holding: The court found that the state trial court conducted an appropriate inquiry into juror impartiality and that defendant suffered no violation of his right to a fair trial.
• Impartial Jury - Fair Cross-Section
Smith v. Berghuis, 06-1463 (9/24/08)
> Defendant was charged with murder and felony possession of a firearm in Michigan state court. At trial, defendant challenged the venire as not being a fair cross-section of the community in that it excluded African Americans. The trial court rejected defendant’s challenge and he was convicted. Defendant lost his state court appeal and filed a federal habeas petition. The district court denied the petition and defendant appealed.
* Holding: In a fair cross-section claim, a defendant must first make a prima facie showing that (1) the excluded group is distinctive, (2) the underrepresentation of the group is unreasonable in relation to number of such persons in the community, and (3) the underpresentation is due to systematic exclusion. If a prima facie case is established, the government must show that a significant state interest is advanced by the selection process as it exists. In the case, the court held that the state’s jury selection process unfairly excluded African Americans and that no significant state interest was served by the process as it existed. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction was reversed.
• Fair and Impartial Jury
Holder v. Palmer, 07-1440 (12/9/09)
> Defendant was charged in state court with sexual penetration of an uninformed person by a person with AIDS. During trial, five jurors responded to voir dire questioning that they may be racially biased against interracial relationships. Each of the jurors, however, responded to questions from the court and counsel that they could set aside any biases and be fair and impartial. Counsel for defendant did not challenge any of the five jurors, the jurors were all empaneled, and defendant was convicted. Defendant lost his state court appeal and filed a federal habeas petition claiming that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the jurors. The district court denied the petition and defendant appealed.
* Holding: In determining whether a juror should be stricken for cause based on impartiality, the relevant question is “did the juror swear that he could set aside any opinion he might hold and decide the case on the evidence, and should the juror’s protestation of impartiality be believed.” On habeas review for ineffective assistance of counsel, the court will only reverse a conviction if the defendant can show that the jurors were actually biased. In the case, the court held that each of the jurors stated that they could set aside their beliefs and judge the case fairly. Further, the court found that defendant offered no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling.