Pros and Cons of Sequestering Trial Juries

The first case of jury sequestering in America occurred in the week or so long trial of the Boston Massacre in 1770. In the twentieth century, jurisdictions began to move away from mandatory sequestering of juries. Previously, in both criminal and civil cases, jury sequestering was mandatory. Now sequestration is on a state-to-state basis. In most states, sequestering of the jury is no longer mandatory even in capital cases.

Due to the excessive media coverage of this case, I do believe the jury should be sequestered. Kobe Bryant is a very high profile athlete with many supporters as well as those who believe he is guilty. A sequestered jury would benefit both the prosecution and defense. The isolation of the jury would help to ensure a fair trial by preventing exposure to prejudicial publicity. In a jury trial, the evidence the jurors use to render a verdict should come only from the prosecution and defense. Such evidence is protected by the "Rules of Evidence" enforced by the judge. This case also presents special circumstances due to the "Rape Shield Law" a non-sequestered jury will be exposed to evidence not allowed by law at the trial that could prejudice their verdict. In a trial with the notoriety of the Bryant, trial sequestration also makes sure jurors are not pressured by the views of others they might come in contact with in the general public. Finally, sequestration protects jurors from threats that might be made by people trying to influence the verdict.

On the other hand, sequestration can be very expensive. There were jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial who reported psychological harm because of the separation from their families due to sequestration. With sequestration, a representative j...

... middle of paper ...

...a reason, the change venue it is a potential issue that could have a negative impact on a black man's chance of getting a fair trial in this matter. Denver, CO 554,636 pop. with 61,649 pop. that is black which would be a good location and a location demographically in the State of Colorado where this defendant could receive a fair trial. To offer the defendant in this matter a fair trial with an impartial jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and again in Brisbin v. Schauer, 176 Colo. 550, 492 P.2d 835 (1971).

In conclusion, I believe that, even though not mandatory, sequestration of the jury is necessary to insure that Mr. Bryant receives a fair trial without the interference of or commentary by the media, sequestration is the only logical solution aside from a change in the location of the trial.