Law Commons^™

The Right To Trial By Jury Shall Remain Inviolate: Jury Trials In Civil Actions In Georgia’S Courts, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

Trials, though rare, “shape almost every aspect of procedure,” and the jury trial is a distinctive feature of civil litigation in the United States. The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ‘preserves’ the right to jury trial “[i]n suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.” Even though this amendment does not apply to the states, courts in the states “honor the right to the extent it is created in their constitutions or local statutes.”

The Georgia Constitution provides that “[t]he right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate,” and Georgia’s appellate courts have shown …

Law School News: Joyce And Bill Cummings Of Cummings Foundation To Deliver Keynote Address At Rwu Commencement 4-20-2023, Jill Rodrigues

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Army Commander’S Role—The Judge, Jury, & Prosecutor For The Article 15, Anthony Godwin

Seattle University Law Review

Service members in the armed forces are bound by a different set of rules when compared to other U.S. citizens. Some of the normal safeguards and protections that civilians enjoy are much more restrictive for military service members, and this is generally for a good reason. Such restrictions are partly due to the complex demands and needs of the United States military. Congress and the President have entrusted military commanders with special powers that enable them to handle minor violations of law without needing to go through a full judicial proceeding. Non-judicial punishments (NJP), also known as Article 15s, are …

The Best Of Both Worlds: Reconciling Tradition With Evolution Under The Ohio And Federal Right To A Civil Jury Trial, Jacob Hoback

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Nullification As A Spectrum, Richard Lorren Jolly

Pepperdine Law Review

Jury nullification traditionally refers to the jury’s power to deliver a verdict that is deliberately contrary to the law’s clearly dictated outcome. A spirited scholarship is built around this conception, with some painting nullification as democratic and others as anarchic. But this debate is largely unmoored from experience. In practice, courts have formally eliminated the jury’s authority to review the law and have established procedures that make it easier to prevent and overturn seemingly nullificatory verdicts. Thus, outside of a jury’s verdict acquitting a criminal defendant, jury nullification as traditionally understood does not exist. In no other context is a …

Juries, Democracy, And Petty Crime, John D. King

Scholarly Articles

The right to trial by jury in criminal cases is basic to the design of American criminal justice and to the structure of American government. Guaranteed by Article III of the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment, and every one of the original state constitutions, the criminal jury was seen as critically important not only to the protection of individual rights but also to the architecture of American democracy. The vast majority of criminal prosecutions today, however, are resolved without even the prospect of community review by a jury. Despite the textual clarity of the guarantee, the Supreme Court has long recognized …

From The Frontlines Of The Modern Movement To End Forced Arbitration And Restore Jury Rights, F. Paul Bland, Myriam Gilles, Tanuja Gupta

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction To Reviving The American Jury, Nancy S. Marder

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bye, Bye, Bilinguals: The Removal Of English- Spanish Bilinguals From The Criminal Jury And Latino Discrimination, Ashley Rich

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

How To Talk So Juries Will Listen, Janet Randall

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rwu Law News: The Newsletter Of Roger Williams University School Of Law 04-2021, Michael M. Bowden, Barry Bridges, Political Roundtable

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

“We” The Jury: The Problem Of Peremptory Strikes As Illustrated By Flowers V. Mississippi, Kayley A. Viteo

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

The Pandemic Juror, Melanie D. Wilson

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

While the deadly and highly contagious COVID-19 virus lingers and spreads across the country, courts are resuming criminal jury trials. In moving forward, judges reference case backlogs, speedy trial rights, and other concerns for the rights of the accused. Overlooked in this calculus is the importance of jurors and their safety. The Sixth Amendment guarantees “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Without jurors, there is no justice.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the justice system sometimes took advantage of juror vulnerability, treating jurors callously, if not rudely, during voir dire by asking them intensely …

Reasonable Doubt And Relativity, Michael D. Cicchini

Washington and Lee Law Review

In theory, the Constitution protects us against criminal conviction unless the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In reality, this lofty standard is only as strong as the words used to explain it to the jury.

Unfortunately, attempts to explain reasonable doubt often create confusion, and sometimes even diminish the burden of proof. Many courts therefore believe that the better practice is not to attempt a definition. However, empirical studies demonstrate that reasonable doubt is not self-defining, i.e., when it is not explained to the jury, it offers defendants no greater protection against conviction than the two lower, …

Equity In American And Jewish Law, Itzchak E. Kornfeld , Ph.D.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …

The Missing American Jury: Restoring The Fundamental Constitutional Role Of The Criminal, Civil, And Grand Juries, Anna Roberts

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

This is a bold book. Professor Thomas urges that the jury—criminal, civil, and grand—be recognized as a fourth “branch” (p. 5). She asserts that procedures that have contributed to the reduction of the jury’s power—including summary judgment and state prosecution without grand juries—are unconstitutional. And, as a Plan B if her constitutional arguments do not prevail, she proposes big changes that include informing juries about sentence exposure, presenting juries with any charges that were offered in plea bargaining, and requiring that juries justify their verdicts.

Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Jury Deliberation, Giuliana Pietrantoni

The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research

Juries are tasked with the duty of deliberating and applying the law to the case at hand. But it is unclear whether juries deliberate or deliberate well enough. Factors which may affect jury deliberation are the motivation of jurors, characteristics of jurors, emotions during and after trial, bargaining, charges, and dissenters. This paper argues that jurors do engage in rigorous dialogue which eventually results in compromises, although whether this creates an unjust verdict is unclear.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Moguls And The Media 1-2-2017, David A. Logan, Roger Williams University

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Truth Or Doubt? An Empirical Test Of Criminal Jury Instructions, Michael D. Cicchini, Lawrence T. White

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I of this article briefly discusses the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, along with its importance to individuals and society generally. Part II surveys some of the truth-related language used in multiple state and federal jurisdictions. It also examines the constitutional problems created by this language and discusses courts' inadequate responses to these problems.

Part III explains our controlled experiment, including our hypotheses, study design, and empirical findings. Part IV discusses these findings and their significance and argues that courts should immediately terminate their use of truth-based jury instructions so that our constitutional guarantees are fulfilled. Finally, …

Introduction, George C. Pratt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Can Court 'Restore Fundamental Liberties'? 03-23-2016, Sheldon Whitehouse, David A. Logan

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages In Section 1983 Actions, John R. Williams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Juror’S Sacred Oath: Is There A Constitutional Right To A Properly Sworn Jury?, Kathleen M. Knudsen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foster V. Chatman And The Failings Of Batson, Patrick C. Brayer

Faculty Works

When the Supreme Court delivered its ruling in Foster v Chatman, the court described the actions of the prosecutors as being “motivated in substantial part by race” when they struck two potential jurors from hearing the capital murder case against Timothy Foster. This phenomenon of open and explicit racial intolerance is unfortunately still in existence thirty years after Foster first went to trial. What the Court failed to acknowledge was how new attitudes of exclusion are less intentional today and more nuanced, implicit, and rationalized. Black defendant’s in 2016 face prosecutors who are less engaged in open discrimination but more …

Newsroom: Nason '05 Cited By U.S. Supreme Court, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Cespedes, Kathleen Egan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Butler, Courtney Weinberger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The , James L. Kainen

James L. Kainen

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …