Jury Selection

The Jury Selection Process

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the [Page 417]accused is guaranteed the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the state in which the crime was committed. The Supreme Court has held that the purpose of the Sixth Amendment is not only to guard against governmental power exercised by overzealous prosecutors and judges but also to protect litigants and defendants from jurors who are unwilling or incapable of rendering unbiased verdicts in a court of law (see Peters v. Kiff, 1972).

Voir dire is the process by which jurors are determined unbiased and therefore suitable to serve on a jury. During voir dire, potential jurors can be struck from selection either “for cause” or peremptorily. “For cause” challenges require proof that potential jurors cannot view the case without bias or that their biases may prevent them from making decisions based solely on the evidence presented at trial. In contrast, peremptory challenges allow counsel to eliminate potential jurors without reason.

In theory, peremptory challenges allow counsel to excuse a juror who may be biased against their clients or may not support a favorable outcome, even if the judge has rejected a “for cause” removal. In practice, the peremptory challenge has caused a great deal of controversy. Opponents of the peremptory challenge argue that the use of group stereotypes during jury selection perpetuates bias and stigmatizes certain groups during voir dire. In addition, these critics maintain that peremptory challenges are often used as a pretext to dismiss jurors because of their race, thus creating an atmosphere of suspicion and disbelief among potential jurors, members of the court, and society as a whole.

Case Law, Jury Selection, and Race

To remedy discriminatory practices that have affected defendants' right to a fair and impartial jury and to eliminate racially based exclusions in the jury selection process, the Supreme Court has delivered several important rulings. Swain v. Alabama (1965) held that the state's intentional denial of jury participation on the basis of race violated the rights of the defendant as guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for defendants. The ruling, however, did not ensure that a particular jury would reflect the racial diversity of the community in the jurisdiction where thetrial was held. The Constitution does not guarantee defendants the right to a proportionate number of jury members of their race. In addition, the Swain decision determined that it was the defendants' burden to demonstrate a systematic pattern of discrimination involving the use of peremptory challenges in order to have a valid Fourteenth Amendment challenge. Some have claimed that this portion of the ruling made it difficult (or impossible) for defendants to prevail.

...