Law Commons^™

The History Of The Special (Struck) Jury In The United States And Its Relation To Voir Dire Practices, The Reasonable Cross-Section Requirement, And Peremptory Challenges, James Oldham

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Oldham provides a unique historical study of the special, or struck, jury in the United States. First, Professor Oldham discusses the influence of the 1730 English statute on eighteenth- century American law and reviews the procedures of several states in which the struck jury remains valid, in addition to the once authorized procedures that states have since declared invalid. He also analyzes the relationship between the struck jury and peremptory challenges. Second, Professor Oldham analyzes the special qualifications of the jurors comprising special juries in the context of the "blue ribbon," or "high-class, " jury, the …

Choosing Perspectives In Criminal Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Bacigal examines the Supreme Court's use of various perspectives in examining the reasonableness of searches and seizures. Although the Supreme Court purports to rely on a consistent method of constitutional analysis when rendering decisions on Fourth Amendment issues, the case law in this area indicates that the Court is influenced sometimes by the citizen's perspective, sometimes by the police officers' perspective, and sometimes by the perspective of the hypothesized reasonable person.

After identifying the role of perspectives in a number of seminal Court decisions, Professor Bacigal discusses the benefits and limitations of the Court's reliance on …

Aggravating And Mitigating Factors: The Paradox Of Today's Arbitrary And Mandatory Capital Punishment Scheme, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Over twenty years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that both mandatory capital sentencing schemes and total discretionary capital sentencing schemes violate the Eighth Amendment. According to Jeffrey Kirchmeier, the "guided discretion" capital sentencing scheme of sentencing factors that has developed, however, has the constitutional problems of both mandatory death penalties and unlimited discretion death penalties.

Justices Scalia, Blackmun, and Thomas have noted that the mandate of unlimited mitigating circumstances has resulted in an arbitrary system. Kirchmeier argues that today's sentencing scheme is arbitrary also because of undefined aggravating factors, unlimited nonstatutory aggravating factors, and victim impact evidence. According …