Posted: December 20th, 2021

Take-Home Exam

Take-Home Exam
Due in the Registrar’s Office
no later than Wednesday, May 6, 2015
at 5:45p.m.
Instructions
You are to write one well-written, well-organized memo that is your own work product
and that addresses each of the four points raised on the next page. Your memorandum is to be
typed and double-spaced throughout.
Your memorandum is not to exceed 3000 words (which is about 10-12 pages). At the
end of the memorandum, please print out (or manually count and write in) the total number of
words contained in your memorandum. Please note: I am serious about the word limit! Feel
free to go under, but not over, the word limit. Those who do not adhere to the word limit will
have points deducted from their score.
It is up to you to decide how much space you want to devote to your discussion of any
one of points (1)- (4) as well as how you want to organize your memorandum, but whatever you
decide be sure to address all four points in the course of your memo.
Remember that your answers do not require any additional research, and you should not
cite any readings outside the readings we read as a class. Whenever possible, however, illustrate
your points by drawing from the reading assignments, class discussions, and DVDs. Full
citations are not required; it will be sufficient to use a case’s or author’s name, and a page number
if appropriate. Abbreviated citations (whether they appear in the text or as footnotes) are part of
the total word count for your essay.
The take-home exam will be distributed at the end of class on Wednesday, April29, 2015
and is due no later than 5:45p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 2015. Please turn in the exam to the
Registrar’s Office, with only your exam number on it so that there can be blind grading. Please
do not include your name anywhere on your exam answer.
Have a good summer!
l
On the following pages (pages 1 – 8) are two articles describing the first criminal trial of
former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The first article, entitled Jurors Fault Complexity of
the Blagojevich Trial, appeared in the New York Times on August 18, 2010. The second article,
entitled The Holdout Juror; For the r Time, Suburban Woman Explains Her Vote, appeared in
the Chicago Tribune on August 27,2010. As you know from our speaker, Mr. James
Matsumoto, who was the foreperson ofthisjury, the jury deliberations were difficult. He
regretted that the jury could only reach a verdict on one count; it was a hung jury as to the
remaining twenty-three counts.
Assume you are a jury expert who has been asked to make policy recommendations to the
American Bar Association (ABA) based on the jury trial described in the attached newspaper
articles. The ABA would like you to draft a memo in which you address all points below (1 – 4):
(1) Jurors Fault Complexity mentions that the jury consisted of”three blacks, six whites,
a Latino, someone with American Indian roots and Mr. Matsumoto, who is Asian-American.”
We also know that the jury consisted of six men and six women. These descriptions suggest that
the jury was diverse according to race and gender. One of the criticisms of peremptory
challenges is that they lead to less diverse juries. Although the articles do not mention
peremptory challenges, the government had 9 peremptory challenges and the defense had 13
peremptory challenges, in addition to the for cause challenges that the judge decides. Explain to
the ABA whether you think the number of peremptories should remain as it is, or whether the
number should be changed (and if so to what number), or whether peremptories should be
eliminated or some other position. Whichever position you think is correct, explain why you
arrived at that position and which readings led you to that view.
(2) In federal court, where this trial took place, the only instruction the judge provides as
to deliberations is as follows: “Upon retiring to the jury room, you must select a presiding juror
[a foreperson]. The presiding juror will preside over your deliberations and will be your
representative here in court.” Explain to the ABA whether you agree with this instruction, and if
so why. If you disagree, explain what information you would want the court to provide to jurors
to inform them about deliberations. If there are lessons to be learned from the class readings on
deliberations, the movie, television pr~gram, or guest speaker we saw, share them with the ABA.
(3) Mr. Matsumoto explained to our class some ofthe difficulties the jury encountered in
doing its job. What tools could the court have used-from among those we read about this
semester–to help the jury better understand the nature of its job and to perform its job more
easily? (Your response should address different issues than those you discussed in (2) above).
(4) The Holdout Juror describes the difficulty ofbeing a hold-out. Mr. Matsumoto also
explained how bad he felt that the jury was a hung jury. He felt it had failed to accomplish its
task. (a) Advise the ABA on whether you think there are any steps that courts or juries could
take to help the hold-out juror remain a hold-out, ifyou think that is important, or any steps that
courts or juries could take to pressure the hold-out to go along with the other jurors, if you think
it is important for the jury to reach agreement. (b) In either case, be sure to explain what role you
think the hold-out juror plays in our jury system.
Gl
. _ Jw’ors Fault Complexity of the Blagojevich Trial – NYTimes.com
lbelautJorklilaaReprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to
your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the “Reprints” tool that appears next to any article. Visit
www.nytreprints.oom for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
August 18, 2010
Jurors Fault CoiDplexity of the
Blagojevich Trial
By MONICA DAVEY and SUSAN SAULNY
Page 1 of4
PRINTEA-FRIENDI.Y FORMAT
SPCMISOIED IIY
CAREY
MULLIGAN
CHICAGO -As the jurors in the corruption case against Rod R. Blagojevich, the former
Illinois governor, entered a 25th-floor conference room here, one problem was instantly
clear: They were overwhelmed.
The judge had handed them instructions that ran to more than a hundred pages. The verdict
sheet was as elaborate as some income tax forms. And many of the 24 counts they were
being asked to consi~er came in multiple parts and were highly technical and
interconnected.
“It was like, ‘Here’s a manual, go fly the space shuttle,” Steve Wlodek, one of the jurors, said
Wednesday.
Jurors said it took them several days just to figure out how to begin to break down their
assignment into manageable tasks – not to mention how to understand the legal
terminology (what exactly is conspiracy to commit extortion?). These were early hints of the
multiple stumbling blocks they would find as they struggled, but failed, over 14 days of
deliberations, to reach a verdict on any of the counts but one.
It also became clear early on that some jurors believed that much of Mr. Blagojevich’s crass
political talk – captured in hours of secretly recorded phone calls – amounted to dreamy
thoughts of what he might gain, not criminal demands.
The jury’s conclusion came as a surprise to many since prosecutors had long suggested that
their evidence would be overwhelming.
“A lot of it came down to, ‘What was his intent?'” Mr. Wlodek said. “You could infer
something if you looked at it one way, or not if you looked another.”
One juror among the 12 disagreed with the rest over convicting Mr. Blagojevich on counts
tied to what prosecutors described as attempts to sell the United States Senate seat once held
~~e .1
http:/ /www.nytimes.com/20 1 0/08/19/us/19jury .html? r= 1 &ref=us&pagewanted=print 8/19/2010
~—–a~ ——–‘
.- Jurors Fault Complexity ofthe Blagojevich Trial- NYTimes.com Page 2 of4
by President Obama, but the jurors were more evenly split over other counts against the
former governor and had, at various times during their private deliberations, cast votes with
all sorts of margins.
That, legal experts said, does not bode well for prosecutors, who have vowed to retry their
case. In cases involving hung juries, a lone holdout may not be a sign of a significant
problem for prosecutors, while a more equally divided jury could be.
In the end, the jurors convicted Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat elected to two terms as
governor, on one charge of giving a false statement to federal agents, but reached a
conclusion that is rare in criminal cases: that they could not agree on the 23 other counts,
including the most serious ones.
Interviews with a handful of the jurors here offered a glimpse inside the conference room
and a sense of why the foreman, James Matsumoto, a retired video librarian for public
television, had on Tuesday morning come to his own certainty that there would be no
certainty here.
“It was kind of a bittersweet thing,” Mr. Matsumoto said, in the living room of his house on
this city’s Northwest Side, “relief that the trial is over, but frustration that we didn’t
accomplish what we set out to do.”
The jury, which had been meeting since the trial’s start in June, was a quiet, sober bunch- a
math teacher, a former Marine, a college student, a retired mail carrier and a retired Navy
commander among them. They included three blacks, six whites, a Latino, someone with
American Indian roots and Mr. Matsumoto, who is Asian-American.
After initial frustration and confusion upon arriving in the deliberation room with little
sense of what to do next, the jurors laid out a plan.
On large sheets of paper, they wrote down crimes Mr. Blagojevich was accused of
committing, and taped each one on the walls around the room. On the sheets: a claim that he
had sought political contributions in exchange for legislation to help a local pediatric
hospital; another that he had sought a political fund-raising event in exchange for state
financing for a school; another that he had sought payments for a law that would benefit the
horse racing industry; and so on.
From time to time, after talking about each claim – and often replaying audiotapes of the
former governor’s secretly recorded phone calls connected to it -the jurors would take a
vote by secret ballot, and write the margin on a Post-it note attached to the appropriate
p~E:z_
http:/ /www.nytimes.com/20 1 0/08/19/us/19jury .html? _r= 1&ref=us&pagewanted=print 8/19/2010 — a
_ Jurors Fault Complexity of the Blagojevich Trial- NYTimes.com Page 3 of4
sheet. This was repeated over and again, often for the same criminal count. “We voted so
many times,” Mr. Matsumoto said.
‘l·he margins ranged vastly and changed as the talks went on. Sometimes, he said, the vote
was 7 to 5, then 5 to 7, then 9 to 3.
Yet the matter of whether Mr. Blagojevich had tried to sell his appointment to fill Mr.
Obama’s former Senate seat raised perhaps the most attention, and took up, jurors said, at
least five days of the deliberations.
After initially being more evenly split on that question, 11 jurors repeatedly cast votes in
favor of convicting on the charges connected to it – charges that included bribery,
conspiracy, extortion conspiracy and racketeering. Many in the group felt that this was the
prosecution’s strongest case, and the set of counts that the jury was most likely to agree on.
But one juror, a woman whom other jurors declined to identify, saying they wanted to
respect her privacy, never budged in her opposition to convicting on the counts. She was
unmoved by recorded calls in which Mr. Blagojevich and his aides spoke of possible jobs,
donations, even a White House cabinet appointment he might get after making his Senate
choice.
Mr. Wlodek described her stance as “very noble,” adding: “She did not see it as a violation of
any laws. It was politics. It was more of conversations of what-ifs.”
Another juror, Erik Sarnello, a student from the suburbs, said: “She just didn’t see it, didn’t
think they had proven it. She wanted clear-cut evidence.”
The conversations grew passionate, but yelling was rare , jurors said. No one recalled tears.
There were light moments of bonding, even amid the disagreement.
Mr. Matsumoto referred to some fellow jurors by nicknames. Mr. Sarnello celebrated his
21st birthday during deliberations. And Mr. Wlodek presented the group with a picture his 5
-year-old daughter had drawn of Mr. Blagojevich and the courtroom as she imagined it.
In the end, Mr. Matsumoto sent a note to the judge, his fifth over 14 days: A verdict was in,
such as it was.
By Wednesday, the group’s views were so vigorously sought after that a court official advised
the 12 to call911 if reporters grew too persistent.
http:/ /www.nytimes.com/20 1 0/08/19/us/19jury .html? _r= 1 &ref=us&pagewanted=print 8/19/2010 a
Jurors Fault Complexity of the Blagojevich Trial- NYTimes.com Page 4 of4
From his living room, the foreman said he believed that a retrial was “owed to the people,”
but he and other jurors also seemed to have some advice for prosecutors: Streamline the
charges, drop some, pick your shots.
But Mr. Wlodek also had an observation Mr. Blagojevich may wish to consider.
“There seemed to be a lot of grandstanding, a lot of laughter on his side of the room,” he said
of the former governor’s courtroom demeanor. “It kind of made me wonder whether he was
taking this seriously.”
http:/ /www.nytimes.com/20 1 0/08/19/us/19jury .html? r=1 &ref=us&pagewanted=print 8/19/2010
…~ earch – 15 Results – holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich Page 1 of4
Custom ID : – No Description – • 1 Switch Client 1 Preferences 1
Help I LiveSupport I Sign Out
History Alerts
FOCUS'”‘ Terms holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich • Search Within Original Results (1 – 15) View
Tutorial
Source: News & Business> Individual Publications> C >Chicago Tribune
Terms: holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich (Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Search)
..t;’select for FOCUS’M or Delivery
ICI
The holdout juror; For the 1st time, suburban woman explains her vote Chicago Tribune August
27, 2010 Friday
Copyright 2010 Chicago Tribune Company
Chicago Tribune
SECTION: NEWS ; Z9NE C; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1475 words
HEADLINE: The holdout juror;
August 27, 2010 Friday
Chicagoland Final Edition
For the 1st time, suburban woman explains her vote
BYLINE: By Stacy St. Clair, Tribune reporter
BODY:
Battling stomach pains and fatigue, JoAnn Chiakulas would take the train into the city each
morning knowing that her resolve was disappointing some people and infuriating others.
But the 67-year-old grandmother said she also knew that as a juror in Rod Blagojevich’s
corruption trial, she had a responsibility to follow her conscience and the law. She said she did
not believe he or his brother committed a crime with their actions to fill Barack Obama’s Senate
seat, so she would not find them guilty despite what other jurors, prosecutors and, perhaps,
the general public wanted.
If it was going to be 11-1, so be it.
“I could never live with myself if I went along with the rest of the jury,” Chiakulas told the
Tribune in her first media interview since the trial ended. “I didn’t believe it was the correct
vote for me.”
The jury deliberated on the sweeping corruption charges for 14 days and, in the end, convicted
Rod Blagojevich of one count of lying to the FBI. The panel was split on the 23 other counts,
prompting the judge to declare a mistrial and the government to promise a retrial.
On Thursday, prosecutors dropped charges against the ex-governor’s brother, Robert, “in the
interests of justice.” All four counts against Robert Blagojevich were related to the Senate seat.
~CA-~e.shttp:/
/www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&oushme= 1 &tmoFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tagge… 3/4/2011
–~—.ii.r——~·
, Search – 15 Results – holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich . .,. Page 2 of4
In the week since the trial’s end, Chiakulas has been branded “the holdout” for her refusal to
convict the ex-governor on the Senate seat allegations. Her life has been placed under a
microscope, with some questioning whether her former government job or her ex-husband’s
campaign donation to Blagojevich three decades after they divorced played a role in her
decision.
A former state public health employee who retired before Blagojevich took office, Chiakulas said
she had no allegiance to the former governor or his family. Though she knew he had been
arrested and impeached, she ignored his pretrial efforts to curry public favor and never saw his
stint on “Celebrity Apprentice.”
“I wasn’t impressed with his shenanigans,” she said.
Chiakulas and two other jurors broke their silence in an interview Wednesday night and offered
their account of the deliberations and the trial’s aftermath. Also attending was longtime Chicago
Tribune contributor Ruth Fuller, a family friend who helped arrange the meeting.
Chiakulas said she found Blagojevich’s recorded statements on the Senate vacancy to be so
scattered and disorganized that his actions did not reach the level of a criminal conspiracy.
One day he chattered about being the Indian ambassador, for example, then in the next
conversation he discussed another plan. In the space of a few weeks, he talked about
appointing, among others, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Oprah Winfrey or himself.
She said she never saw him formulate a clear plan to sell the seat. But in voting him not guilty,
she stressed she did not find him innocent.
“I thought he was narcissistic,” she said. “I thought he was all over the place. I thought he was
just rambling.”
It also concerned Chiakulas that some key witnesses who testified against Blagojevich had cut
deals with prosecutors before testifying, she said.
“Some people in (the jury room) only saw black and white,” Chiakulas said. “I think I saw, in
the transcripts and in the testimony, shades of gray. To me, that means reasonable doubt.”
But standing her ground in the jury room was not easy. Other jurors have acknowledged
pressuring Chiakulas to change her vote on the Senate seat, with one man going so far as to
switch chairs so he could “look her in the eyes” during deliberations. She was yelled at and told
she wasn’t being logical, jurors said.
One person asked the judge for a copy of the juror’s oath, implying that Chiakulas wasn’t
fulfilling her obligation. Chiakulas and at least two other female jurors said they felt belittled
and questioned whether their gender had something to do with their treatment.
“Our voices really weren’t heard,” Chiakulas said. “And people did get very upset because they
felt like they were being ignored or disrespected.”
The tension during deliberations stood in stark contrast to the familial feeling throughout the
seven-week trial. The jury spent endless hours together at the federal courthouse, celebrating
birthdays, finishing communal crossword puzzles and sharing lunches. They couldn’t discuss the
case — the one thing they had in common — so they discussed their lives.
Some relationships, however, began to unravel during deliberations when jurors realized that
real divisions existed. After convicting Blagojevich of lying to the FBI, they could not find
unanimous agreement anywhere else.
“~e b
http://www .lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme= 1 &tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tagge… 3/4/2011 —– tJ
Search – 15 Results – holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich – Page 3 of4
They split fairly evenly on some counts, particularly those involving Robert Blagojevich and
accusations that the former governor shook down a horse track owner for campaign
contributions. But the divide over the Senate seat — the case’s marquee charge — would be the
one that grabbed headlines.
The vote was 11-1, though others, including juror Ashlee Moore, had doubts about
Blagojevich’s guilt during deliberations. Moore initially voted “not guilty” on the Senate charges
and then changed her mind in the final days after listening to the tapes again.
Chiakulas realized her stance caused great tension, and it weighed heavily on her, she said.
She had stomach pains that made it difficult to sleep. She was taking Tylenol in the morning to
ease the headaches that arose during deliberations in the cramped, hot jury room.
“I can’t explain how badly I felt,” she said. “I didn’t sleep at night. I thought about it on the
train. I wanted to make sure my reasonable doubt was reasonable.”
Though one juror said he considered sending a note to the judge accusing Chiakulas of not
deliberating in good faith, juror Olga Duvvuri said Chiakulas listened to everyone’s opinion and
always contributed to the discussions. She took copious notes during debates, highlighted
important portions of transcripts and repeatedly listened to the recorded phone calls that
provided the foundation for the prosecution’s case.
If anything, some jurors were so convinced of Blagojevich’s guilt that they refused to consider
Chiakulas’ argument~ for acquitting, Duvvuri said.
“JoAnn did her job. She did the right thing,” said Duvvuri, who voted to convict Blagojevich on
some counts and acquit on others. “She voted how she saw the evidence.”
Still, the holdout label upsets Chiakulas and some other jurors because, they say, it wrongly
suggests she was a Blagojevich apologist. To the contrary, she readily acknowledged the
governor’s faults during deliberations and made it clear that she didn’t condone his behavior or
leadership, Moore said.
“She admitted he talks too much, he sounds like an idiot sometimes,” Moore said. “She said,
‘But we’re not here to determine whether he talks like an idiot sometimes. That’s not what he’s
on trial for.’ ”
When the trial ended, Chiakulas took the train home to the western suburbs and was ready to
put the experience behind her. She had no idea that over the next 48 hours she would become
the subject of newspaper articles, radio talk shows, TV reports and blogs.
After jurors referred to an unnamed holdout in interviews, Chiakulas’ neighbors, friends and
relatives were bombarded with phone calls, e-mails and interview requests. Reporters camped
out at her home for hours, leaving notes asking her to defend both her vote and her
background.
Chiakulas, for her part, said she was a public servant hired during Gov. Jim Edgar’s
administration. Her ex-husband was politically active before his death, but they were divorced
more than 30 years ago.
She also said she did not know Blagojevich co-defendant Chris Kelly, who lived in the same
subdivision as one of her relatives before committing suicide a year ago.
The inferences — along with suggestions that she’s “crazy” — anger Chiakulas. She said it
upsets her that people want to find an ulterior motive for her decision, rather than believe it’s
possible that the prosecution had not proved its case.
~Nj~ .ihttp://
www .lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme= 1 &tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tagge. .. 3/4/2011
d
• • Search – 15 Results – holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich Page 4 of4
“It was something that I took seriously and didn’t ask for,” she said. “And then to be treated
the way I’ve been treated, it makes me wonder about being a juror and the system itself.”
f”‘”‘lid the media frenzy, Moore grew increasingly concerned for Chiakulas’ well-being. When she
c.uuldn’t reach her by telephone, Moore called U.S. Judge James Zagel’s chambers and asked
that someone make sure Chiakulas was OK.
“I just feel that JoAnn was thrown under the bus a little,” Moore said. “And it makes me sad.”
While Chiakulas shunned the media spotlight in the days after the verdict, the loquacious
Blagojevich appeared on national television to thank her for her resolve and proclaim that she
has reaffirmed his faith in God.
When asked about his comments, Chiakulas frowned and slightly shook her head.
“I didn’t do it for him,” she said.
sstclair@tribune.com
NOTES: THE BLAGOJEVICH TRIAL: TRIBUNE EXCLUSIVE
GRAPHIC: Graphic (color): Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich?s attorney Sam Adam Jr. speaks to
the jurors on July 27. “I could never live with myself if I went along with the rest of the jury,”
holdout juror JoAn,n Chiakulas says. “I didn’t believe it was the correct vote for me.” CHERYL
COOK/ILLUSTRATION FOR THE TRIBUNE
Graphic(s)
LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2010
Source:
Terms:
View:
Date/Time:
In
News & Business > Individual Publications > C > Chicago Tribune 11]
holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich (Edit Search 1 Suggest Terms for My Search)
Full
Friday, March 4, 2011 – 3:33 PM EST
About LexisNexis 1 Privacy Policy 1 Terms & Conditions I Contact Us
Copyright © 2011 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
p~~ ~
http ://wv.w.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme= 1 &tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tagge… 3/4/2011

J

URORS FAULT COMPLEXITY OF THE BLAGOJEVICH TRIAL AND THE HOLDOUT JUROR
Student’s Registration
Institution’s Name
Course Title

 
JURORS FAULT COMPLEXITY
As the attorneys and defendants scanned the jurors’ faces looking for favourable signs during the ex-Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich’s, corruption trial, most of them could not get to read on the poker-faced grandmother taking meticulous notes on the far end of the jury box.
JoAnn Chiakulas was a retired state employee who turned out to be the only holdout standing against a conviction of the ousted governor on charges that he had tried to sell President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat.
It was nine days later after jurors deadlocked on all but one charge against Blagojevich, Chiakulas defended publicly her resolve in an interview, for the first time, published on a Friday by the Chicago Tribune. It filled out a picture of tensed juror deliberations and the feeding debate about her role. Chiakulas stood by her vote and said that she had found Blagojevich’s statements captured on the Federal Bureau of Investigation wiretap recordings in a disorganized manner and so scattered that his actions could not be termed or amount to a criminal conspiracy. She told the tribute that she thought that Blagojevich was just rambling and swore that she would disown herself if she went ahead to support what the jury purported.
Chiakulas, who had declined to respond to a media’s onslaught requests including several which came from The Associated Press. She answered some with some of the conjecture about her not arising after the verdict. From that, her motives were to see whether her past work where she served as a state bureaucrat would somehow be coloured and see that Blagojevich was dismissed as a routine political horse trader.

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
Peremptory Challenge is the right and not an obligation of the plaintiff and the defendant who are in a jury trial to have the juror dismissed before trial is carried without stating a reason. This challenge is different from a challenge for cause/reason based on the potential juror having to admit bias, any acquaintanceship with the attorney or one of the parties, having personal knowledge about the facts underlying the case, or evidence of some other basis to believe that he/she might not act impartially.
NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
The number of peremptory challenges for either side differs based on the state law, the number of parties involved in a case, and whether the case involves a civil or a criminal trial. The lawyers usually use the phraseology “Juror number seven may be excuse in exercising the challenge. Peremptory challenges are a basis to provide a more impartial and a better qualified jury. It also allows an attorney to dismiss a potential juror for a real or an imagined partiality that would become difficult in demonstrating under the challenge for a cause category. However, peremptory challenges, have become more difficult to exercise since the U.S. Supreme Court has banned any peremptory strikes which are based on race or gender.
Parties to a case do not have any federal constitutional right to dare exercise a peremptory challenge. These peremptory challenges are only granted by statute or by case law. In addition, the number of challenges to exercise is usually determined by statute, although some jurisdictions can allow the trial court in question to grant additional peremptory challenges.
In a federal court, either side is entitled to three peremptory challenges unless there are more than two parties involved in the proceedings where the court has an option to either grant additional challenges or even restrict the parties to that minimum number of challenges.
In the Jurors Fault Complexity, it is public knowledge that the government had nine peremptory challenges while the defence side had thirteen. If this case was carried out in the federal court, the two sides should have been restricted to the three peremptory challenges. This therefore means that both sides had more than required number of peremptory challenges. It is however possible that this court where the proceedings were taking place had been mandated by its jurisdiction to grant additional peremptory challenges.
These peremptory challenges which came under the legal attack in the 1980s have been criticized with a claim that white prosecutors were using their peremptory challenges to remove the African Americans from the jury when the criminal defendants were also African American for the prosecutors thought that potential jurors would sympathize with a member of their race.
The state and the defendants shall each be given these number of peremptory challenges:
If the offense with which one is charged is punishable by either death or life imprisonment; then one is allowed ten peremptory challenges while one is allowed only six if the offence is only punishable by imprisonment for more than twelve months and not by either death or life imprisonment. Any other offences attracts three peremptory challenges but if two or more defendants are being tried jointly, each defendant is allowed the number of peremptory challenges mentioned above and the state is allowed as many challenges as there are allowed to all of the defendants.

SELECTION OF JURORS
Selection of jurors is done from some combined lists of registered voters and those of Department of Motor Vehicles records. The length of jury term of service keeps varying from county to county, but there is no trial juror who can serve more than 10 days unless it is necessary to complete a trial in progress. A day of service refers to each day during a jury service term when a juror is expected to attend and actually attends. All persons at least eighteen years of age are eligible to serve as a juror as long as they are U.S. Citizens, and reside in that county when they are summoned, unless he/she has had their rights and privileges withdrawn as a result of some criminal convictions or have ever served in the jury duty in any state or a federal Court in Oregon in the last 24 months. This opportunity for jury service is not denied or limited based on race, country of origin, sex, age, religion, income, occupation, or any factor which discriminates against a group in Oregon.
There are no excuses from jury duty which are granted based on status as a business proprietor, teacher, doctor, lawyer, professor, police officer or any other occupations. It is of utmost importance to the administration of justice that jurors are always available from the entire community and that any requests to be excused are made only when a genuine evidence of undue hardship or extreme inconvenience is in existence. If there is a good cause shown, the persons can request that their term of service is deferred until another term.
Each and every county should set a different amount of time for the juror’s term of service during which the juror may be required to offer service.

Disabled Jurors: No person can be termed as is ineligible to act as a juror whether he/she is blind, hearing impaired, speech impaired or with a physical disability on the basis of their disability or impairment alone. In the event that a disabled juror is summoned, he/she has a chance to submit a written request seeking for the services of a qualified interpreter or the option to use of an Helpive communications device. In this case, the interpreter or the Helpive device is used to determine his or her ability to act as a juror or qualification to perform his or her functions appropriately as a juror. Once the Court finds that the juror is in need of the services of an interpreter or requires an Helpive communication device, an interpreter is appointed by the court or an Helpive communication device provided. The public authority is the one responsible for the costs, compensation, and any expenses which are required to accommodate such a disabled juror.
The Jury Deliberations on the Presiding Juror: After the jury receives and hears the instructions the final arguments respectively, it retires to the jury room to concentrate on deliberating. In most of the states, the first order of business is usually to elect the foreperson or presiding juror. The Presiding juror s responsible for presiding over all discussions and the voting of the jurors, and thereafter deliver the verdict. On the other side, we have a bailiff whose job is to see to it that there is no communication with the jury in the course of deliberations. Hence, the instruction provided by the judge in a federal court that as “Upon retiring to the jury room, you must select a presiding juror” is justified. I tend to fully agree with the statement in that, without the foreman, it would be hard for the deliberations to take place efficiently. The presiding juror is truly the person who presides over the deliberations and acts as representative in court.
In some states, it is common practice for the jury to take the exhibits in the record to the jury room as well as judge’s instructions. Sometimes the jury may also question the evidence or the instructions given by the judge. In the event this happens, the jury gives a note to the bailiff to take to the judge to which the judge may respond or call the jury into the courtroom for further discussions and instructions or even have some portions of the transcript being read to them. Important to note is that any communication between the judge and jury must take place in presence of lawyers from each side or with their knowledge.
In normal circumstances, the court issues the jury with written forms bearing all possible verdict to ensure that the jury chooses the proper verdict when a decision is reached .Usually, a criminal case attracts a unanimous verdict. However, some states allow a less than unanimous decision but all federal cases must have a unanimous decision.
If the case where the jury fails to come to a decision by the end of the day, they may be sequestered. They may also be housed in a hotel in seclusion from all other people, any newspaper and news reports. The jury, however, be allowed to go home at night in most cases with the judge’s instruction that they should not read or view any reports of the case in the news. They should also not discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room.
In a case where the jurors cannot agree on a verdict, they get a hung jury which leads to a mistrial. In this case, a decision will not be reached and it may be tried some time later before a new jury. This may even lead to the plaintiff or government deciding not to pursue the case further.
DIFFICULTIES THAT JURORS FACE
The jury system has been a central of criminal trials since its inception. However, its privileged role is continuously under threat with its advantages becoming increasingly vague and its flaws becoming more conspicuous to the academic and layman alike. The ambit of the jury has eroded in civil jurisdictions while the pressures of an organised crime are combining to question the real value of jury trials in the modern society.
Firstly, many trials are long and complicated with a basis on fine interpretations of jurisprudence which is far beyond the jurors’ reach. As a result, all the people’s intellectual commitments to democracy stops at the doors of the courthouse.
Secondly, many jury trials take more than one day. Anyone agile and with the knowledge that the jury duty will last a long, gets around the rules and regulations. For instance, a small businessmen, a contractor, or self-employed person can risk to lose significant income and clients who get tired of waiting.
Thirdly, anyone who is living in a major, crime-ridden jurisdiction can count on getting a jury summons like after every two years. With the many crimes in DC for instance, and such a small number of jurors, there is need for frequency to keep up with the demand.
Fourthly, many cases are brought to court when they should have been brought and this burdens the docket by increasing the workload for everyone needlessly. As if it is not enough for the DC courts to hear cases of rape, armed robbery, murder and aggravated assault, some comical and ludicrous cases are also brought there.
Juries are also faced with threats. The Civil and Common Law jurisdictions have gone ahead to reduce the jury’s role in the justice system. This has been through the establishment of some special courts and statutes. This was mainly to intimidate jury trials due to criminal organisations.
Jury Selection is a difficulty in the justice system. The jury duty is compulsory for those of in states for all those above 18 years. In the United States, however, there is an influx of the non-Irish citizens yet The Law Reform Commission raises the point that these are not allowed to serve in the jury which is part of the modern society. This exception does not favour a heterogeneous jury with different ideals and viewpoints hence creating a more competent and effective jury hence should be amended.
These non-national residents should be given an inclusive experience in the legal system for a participative democracy. Therefore, an effort need to be made to encourage the non-nationals to buy into our system.
Comprehension is also a problem. This is because the laypeople cannot understand what is happening. These laypeople are forced to juggle around with complex issues which they cannot comprehend. It has been pointed out that the laypeople should engage themselves in legal gymnastics and simultaneously consider factual evidence.
There is also some subjective bias. The jury is famous of prejudice which has added some immovable subjectivity to proceedings. This subjective bias has led to the reverse halo effect in which the representatives of groups are labelled with some undesirable characteristics at the expense of constructive fact.
The peremptory challenge also poses a hard time to the jury system. The fact that a defendant or a plaintiff can challenge the jury without grounds is a nightmare. These challenges are mainly instituted as a mechanism to exclude non-whites from the jury. As a matter of fact, this absents some portions of the society from jury duty, and this deprives the court of vast quantity of knowledge and experience. This practice should be eliminated for this reasoning of the US Supreme court is questionable. In addition, these peremptory challenges are short of validity because it is not possible for one to obtain from a cursory investigation any accurate indications of character. What am proposing is that the whole system be scraped and we go the French way.
HOLD OUTS
Holdouts are just oddballs and misfits. They can also be people who are devoted to the principle that for any just conviction, true unanimity and not compromise is required. The lawyers and jury consultants always say that when there exists any hints of a holdout, the legal risks are high and the strategy to employ is uncertain.
It is common happenings in the jury room, to have emotions spike and nerves fray. The tensions are compounded in the cases that draw great public interest such as those of murder and terrorism. Some of these include cases like that of Tyco and Astor and that of Mr. Ghailani, who faced conspiracy and murder charges as a result of the bombing of the American Embassies in East Africa in 1998. The interest of the jurors intensifies when they know that their decision is being closely followed. The Courts take it very seriously when it comes to Juror safety and issues protecting the jurors’ personal and confidential information. For any lawyer and judges, the possibility of a holdout is a legal minefield and no judge is allowed to ask jurors any details of any continuing deliberations. For special instructions, they can bring divided juries back into the courtroom which is a common practice sometimes called dynamite instructions for their purpose is to break a logjam. Under the law, such instructions, cannot require the jurors to abandon their deeply held beliefs though they can encourage open-mindedness. A mistrial is seen as a good development for a defendant for it provides him/her with another chance to fight the case where the prosecutors have decided on a retrial at all.
In the contrary, defence lawyers have said that there can be a treacherous way to press a judge to declare a mistrial in the event that there is a chance at an acquittal. Holdouts who do not waver can bring a mistrial while the one who owns up brings an acquittal.
Any claims of some juror misconduct in a trial are viewed with a lot of seriousness like the one given to the potential impact on the integrity of the criminal justice system and that of confidence in jury verdicts. The importance of avoiding any environment where jurors are singled out for attack and/or subjected to threats to safety and their well-being because of individual their decisions in the process of jury deliberations is also of great concern. If it is expected that citizens will willingly serve and carry out their oaths honourably and with integrity, juror’s decisions must be respected whether they are in favour of the prosecution or not. In the instances where credible information of misconduct exists, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office reviews the matter and make a request for an independent investigation after which an independent review is sought for any potential charges and prosecution. If the circumstances warrant it, this process may be altered.
In the current case, State v. Arias trial, attacks on Juror 17, presented on the basis of speculation, it must stop. Some outlined process of review should be followed. This matter need to have the available information fairly assessed in order to provide any justification for the death threats.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: #1 Assignment Help Online Service for Students in the USA, AI Plagiarism free essay writing tool, Australian best tutors, best trans tutors, buy essay uk