The Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado case is about a man, Miguel Pena-Rodriguez, who committed crimes of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment seeking a new trial because of the racial basis of one of the jurors. In this case the petitioner is Miguel Pena-Rodriguez believes that his guilty verdict is not valid because of the racial biased by a juror, which is validated by two other jurors recounts. The state of Colorado, the respondent, will not grant a retrial because of Rule 606(b), which, “prohibits introduction of evidence regarding statements made in jury deliberations,” and therefore Miguel Pena-Rodriguez could not use the racial comment from the jurors in this retrial (Ballotpedia). However, Miguel Pena-Rodriguez argues that this rule cannot apply to cases of racial biases because it impedes on his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury (Ballotpedia). In Colorado, and in many states the Rule 606(b), otherwise known as the “no impeachment rule,” prevent jurors from having to …show more content…
testify their statements from deliberation when offered to change the jury’s verdict. After Pena-Rodriguez petitioned for a retrial, he was denied by both the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the Colorado Supreme Court. The Colorado Court of Appeals gave the opinion that because the Rule 606(b) not allowing jurors to make statement after the trial, and due to the fact that Pena-Rodriguez’s counsel failed to question the juror thoroughly during the voir dire, the preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a judge or counsel, that the court could not grant a retrial under the pretense that the Sixth Amendment was violated (Oyez). Furthermore, the Colorado Supreme Court cited in their opinion the opinion from the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court Decision, in Tanner v. United States, which, “ rejected a challenge to 606(b) rules on the basis of juror incompetence,” and stated that numerous other aspects throughout the trial protected the defendant's sixth amendment right (Ballotpedia). Therefore, the legal question brought before the Supreme Court is as followed: “May Rule 606(b) of Colorado's Rules of Evidence bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury?”(Supreme Court). It is in the opinion of the court that in cases where racial prejudices are present in the jury, the Rule 606(b) of Colorado's Rules of Evidence violates the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The court has come to this discussion after carefully deliberating over the amicus briefs, the appeals of both the petitioner and respondent, and previous court rulings. In the first in a numerous reasons the court decided against allowing the Rule 606(b) to prevail is that racial bias in juries violate not only The U.S Constitution but international human right laws. The court found compelling arguments in the amicus brief by the Hispanics National Bar Association, which stated that this particular case should apply strict scrutiny to invalidate that Rule 606(b) (The National). In the course of the argument, the amicus brief touched upon the importance of eradicating racism in our judicial system. The brief pointed to critical court cases from our history, like the 1880 Strauder v. West Virginia where the court ruled that, “the Equal protection law is violated when African-Americans are purposefully excluded from juries on account of their race,” which would eventually be extended to other minorities like Hispanics (The National). Then, in addition to the U.S not allowing racism in the juries, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Committee On The Elimination Of Racial Discrimination (CERD) commend racism in any judicial court in the world. The United States has adopted both the principles of the ICCPR and CERD though treaties. Within the the principles of CERD, it specifically States that “the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law,” which includes “equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice,” (The United). In conjunction with the CERD, the ICCPR also mandates that everyone “shall be equal before the courts,” and that each country must obtain, “ a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law,” (The United). Therefore, In this decision it is very important to eliminate racial bias in the jurors for the sake of the Constitution and international treaties. In essence, based on the evidence that there was a block to a fair and impartial trial because of racial matter, needs to be meet with the utmost scrutiny. Regardless of purpose of the rules in place, it is crucial that the Sixth Amendment and international laws are upheld. In addition to the strict scrutiny on race, the court that also finds that Hispanics in particular have a deep history of discrimination and underrepresented in this country. The brief by the United Mexican States expands on the tremulous history the United States have with Hispanics. In 1928, during the California Gold Rush, thousands of people from Mexican descent were hanged, burned, and shot because of their race (The United). Additionally, in a 2010 survey by the Pew Research group showed that 60% Hispanics thought that discrimination against them is, “major problem in this country,” and that in the past couple of years that number has risen (The United). These results from the surveys are consistent with the rise in anti-immigrant, and more specifically, anti-Hispanic sentiment in this country. With the negative sentiment towards HIspanics in mind, when the court reviewed the brief by the Hispanics National Bar Association, which cited a study done in Manhattan of 14,000 prospective jurors and found that, “Hispanics were underrepresented by a stunning 77%,” we found it interesting how it the anti-Hispanic sentiment is infiltrating our legal system (The National). Additionally, there was another study done in New York State which found that, “Hispanics were underrepresented on juries in 58 of the 62 counties,” which again is very disparaging considering that there are more studies that show the huge gaps of underrepresented (The National). In the course of our decision, the court found these studies very compelling when also considering the country's’ history. These arguments further the narrative that racism against Hispanic is a grave issue permeating in our court system and that the courts need more measure to eradicate it. The argument presented by the petitioner, represented by Jeffrey L. Fisher, cemented the ruling that the Rule 606(b) of Colorado's Rules of Evidence violates the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The Rule 606(b) is in place so the lawyer cannot take the jury’s words to overturn the decision of a case. However, with balant evidence of racism, like in this case, the Rule 606(b) is a barrier to the petitioner's right to a fair and impartial trial. When the court finds racism to implement into our system, it creates blocks a person’s right to the Sixth Amendment and it therefore blocks our quest to a fair democracy (Oyez). Around ten minute into to his oral argument, the court resinated Fisher’s argument that, “different tools must be available to root out different kinds of discrimination. And that's the whole point of strict scrutiny is we do not leave any stones unturned when it comes to race,” because racism, whether against African Americans, Hispanics, or Asians, has always been prevalent in our history, which makes it even more necessary to remedy the issue (Oyez). In previous cases like Rose v. Mitchell, Ham v. South Carolina, and Batson v. Kentucky, the court has distinguished the difference between bias and racial bias because, “a bias, harmful though it may be, that affects only a private litigant, compared to racial bias which is a stain on the entire judicial system and the integrity that it's built upon,” and therefore the measure to the court is establishing is only in matters of racial bias (Oyez). For our judicial system, it is of the utmost importance to protect everyone’s Sixth Amendment right, and therefore that is why the court has decided to make an exception with regards to racism, to the Rule 606(b). The implementation of the exception to the Rule 606(b) is essential for fair and impartial trials.
If after the voir dire and the actual trial is over, and it becomes evident that race was a factor in the verdict by the jury, then the defendant has a right to ask the judge for a retrial based the racist statement made in jury deliberations. In the implementation of this new rule, the prosecutor of the defendant must abide by federal laws in the process of obtaining the racist remarks from the jurors. It is then once all the information has been submitted, it is up to the judge to decide whether or not the statements in question can call for the exception in the Rule 606(b). If the defendant or prosecutor breaks any laws in the process of gathering information, or if they try to blatantly abuse the exception to the Rule 606(b), then fines and/or prison sentences can be applied to both. However, in every case the judge needs to review all the material and the release his or her own
verdict. The impact of the new exception to the Rule 606(b) with not only be seen in this cases but in similar to this. In any case, if racism is present, whether it is against African Americans, Hispanics, or Asians, then the court will be able to overturn an unfair judgement. Instead of jurors making decisions based on race, they be forced to use the evidence to convict a defendant of a crime. It will make more people aware of racism within the court, but also all across the country. In courtrooms, judges will finally be able to overturn bad verdicts based on evidence of racism.
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church
The Sixth Amendment states that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. However, Dexter was in jail for 25 years since 1982, and the appeal was still in process to the Supreme Court. Also, based on the jury selection on exhibit B, document one, there were only white people in the final jury, and African Americans were struck peremptory by prosecution. Dexter did not have an impartial jury because white people may favor his opposed side due to the different race. According to Batson v. Kentucky, the USSC also determined that peremptory challenges used to exclude jurors on the basis of race could be challenged by the defendant. It was not fair for Dexter to not have the same race people as him in the jury. In addition, the Sixth Amendment also says that both federal and state courts must provide a lawyer if the accused cannot afford to hire one. Even though Dexter did have an attorney, his attorney was not organized and prepared. The adequate attorney was not as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because he admitted that “he has not been to the crime scene, or viewed the crime scene photographs…has not viewed the prosecution’s witness list.” He had not done anything that could help defend Dexter. He didn't even call witnesses in the court to help Dexter. Strickland v. Washington also supports this because the court upheld the defendant’s conviction that his rights had been violated when his lawyer did not provide enough evidence to avoid the death
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Batson. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the prosecutor from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable to consider the state’s case ag...
Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected. This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning, anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law. The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects.
Reasoning: It was found that it is unconstitutional for the jury to not be provided the evidence and/or findings that could potentially increase the penalties that a defendant faces. The Court found that the Due Process Clause does, in fact, require that any evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt must be submitted. This ensures ""the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned."
The Santa Fe v. Doe case delineated the constitutionality of prayer and Christianity in America. The famous case that transformed how prayer in a public sphere is understood took place on March 28, 2000 and was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court reaching a verdict on June 18, 2000. The case was brought forward by a Mormon and a Christian family who believed that the Santa Fe High School practice an act which was a clear endorsement of a religion by the government as the school was a public school. it was supported by the school faculty.
The representation of the community must be represented by the jury pool. Thus, if a community is fifty percent African American, and the jury pool is predominately white then that would be in violation of the defendants Sixth Amendment rights. This is issue is a more recent common one than many think. As recently as the early 1960’s courts still used what was known as blue ribbon juries. This allowed mainly educated white males of high moral character to be selected as jurors, thus not a true representation of most communities. In 1967, a survey conducted by federal courts showed as much as sixty percent still relied on this type of selection. However, in 1968 the Jury Selection and Service Act, was accepted. “This system for federal courts, declaring it henceforth to be the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community. In 1975, the Supreme Court extended the ideal of the cross-sectional jury to state courts as well, rul¬ing that the very meaning of the constitutional guarantee of trial by an impartial jury required that the jury pool be a mirror image or microcosm of the eligible community population.” (Abramsson, 2008) With these landmarks passing the right to a fair and impartial jury should be guaranteed to all individuals facing a trial
Stevenson, Bryan A. Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection. Rep. Montgomery, Alabama: Equal Justice Initiative, 2010. Print.
The right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury is implicitly indicated in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A jury is a panel of citizens who hear and render a verdict in a case that is being tried in the community. Juries hear and render verdicts on both Civil and Criminal cases. Currently, juror qualifications are the following; are at least 18 years of age, a United States Citizen, reside in the location of jury service, are able to read and write in English, have no disqualifying mental or physical condition. Disqualifications for juror selection include the following; felony conviction or felonious charges where the punishment can result in imprisonment for a year or more. In addition to, qualifications and disqualifications, exemptions exist for jury service that depends on the locality of the venue. Federally, jury exemptions are of the following; public officers, members of professional police and fire departments, and members who are active duty in the armed forces. In addition, local exceptions for jurors are of the following; over 70 years of age, primary caretaker of a person who is unable to care for himself or herself, guardians who have a child younger than 12 years of age, where the guardian service on the jury would require leaving the child without supervision, a student in public or private secondary school, a person enrolled and in actual attendance at a higher education institution. Fairness was not always permitted in regards to having chosen a jury present at hearings, in the early times prejudice was highly common. In the past, groups excluded from jury service such as women, African Americans, and those of Hispanic descent. Previous group exclusions are deemed unconstit...
His jury was unaware of their ability to nullify a law. Another man in Louisiana is accused of the exact same thing, but this time, his jury is aware that they are able to nullify a law because it is unjust. The man in Oregon would be much more likely to be found guilty than the man in Louisiana simply because of the fact that the jurors weren’t aware of their abilities. In no way is a man being found guilty of a crime another man is found innocent for fair. It’s right there in the United States Constitution, “All men are created equal,” so they would both deserve the right to have the same verdict, not have the results be skewed simply based on the fact that one jury didn’t know their abilities.