Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Expert In The Box: Keeping The Lid On Unchallenged Testimony, Derek L. Busch

Georgia Criminal Law Review

A juror with specialized knowledge carries the potential to infringe upon the trial rights of the accused, provided to them by the Sixth Amendment and incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. These rights include the right to an impartial jury and the right of confrontation, recognized since the founding of the first colonies. When a juror possesses relevant professional expertise or background information regarding evidence adduced at trial, there is a risk in how the juror will use this personal knowledge in deliberations. Particularly, there is a concern the juror will use their knowledge to add information, rather …

Guaranteeing A Jury Of One's Peers Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, Grace Voissem

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The right to a trial by jury is a foundational cornerstone of American democracy. This right has long been obfuscated by institutional inequality, preventing defendants from receiving a genuinely representative jury of their peers. California legislators proposed Assembly Bills 1452, 1981, and 881 to temporarily increase juror stipends for low-income jurors in select superior courts, hoping to address socioeconomic barriers to jury service. While AB 1452 and AB 1981 were enacted, the Governor vetoed AB 881.

This Note argues that this legislation strengthens the Sixth Amendment by empowering defendants to receive an impartial, representative jury from their community. However, these …

Misinformation And The Jury, Gustavo Ribeiro

Indiana Law Journal

This Article bridges critical gaps between the growing body of social science research on misinformation and the persistent challenges jurors face in evaluating potentially unreliable evidence in courtrooms. Misinformation—a pervasive issue undermining decision-making in democratic societies—mirrors the difficulties jurors encounter in distinguishing truth from falsehood amid compelling but unreliable evidence. The consequences of such challenges are dire: wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the erosion of public trust in the legal system.

This Article is the first piece of legal scholarship to provide a comprehensive discussion of current research on the psychological mechanisms underlying susceptibility to misinformation—such as the illusory truth …

Rethinking Juror Impartiality, Anna Offit

Faculty Publications

Jury impartiality in the contemporary court often justifies the perpetuation of exclusionary selection practices that make juries more—not less—biased. This Article calls for a rethinking of this important but flawed concept. Constitutional interpretations and conceptions of “impartiality” frame it as a transient orientation toward particular evidence or parties. Yet, during voir dire, the prevailing conception of jury impartiality is that it is an immutable character trait that must be discovered—if not created—by professional legal actors. What voir dire creates is not an impartial jury, but precisely the opposite: a venire shaped by the strategic biases of lawyers.

This Article offers …

Law School News: Seeing Justice Up Close 10-22-2025, Alli-Michelle Conti

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Right To Jury Trial: Lemieux V. Robbins, Stephen R. Sunenblick

Maine Law Review

A sagacious English liveryman named Tobias Hobson allowed each customer to choose the horse nearest the door, thereby presenting these customers with no real alternative. The State of Maine made a like proposition in Lemieux v. Robbins by implementing a novel criminal procedure whereby a defendant has a "choice" of either accepting his district court misdemeanor conviction as final, or appealing for a de novo trial by jury in superior court and possibly being convicted of a felony for contravening the same statute under which he was originally charged. The implementation of this procedure began with a complaint filed in …

Colonizing By Contract, Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud

Faculty Scholarship

Since 1898, Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States, meaning that Congress wields plenary power over the Island. Although scholars have highlighted the history and some modern manifestations of this power, conversations about how plenary power affects the territories have largely ignored constitutional criminal procedure.

This Article is the first to center the territory’s criminal legal system within the broader debate over the exercise of plenary power. In doing so, it fills significant gaps in the constitutional and criminal law literature on the territories by uncovering how the federal government’s plenary power affects local criminal adjudication. This …

Reimagining The Inclusive Jury, Anna Offit

Faculty Publications

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, everyday life for many Americans was upended. And yet, the jury trial remained viable — even vital. Faced with an era-defining public health disaster, courts innovated, embracing novel technologies and techniques to reimagine where and how justice might be made. But why did it take a pandemic to spur this kind of institutional creativity? Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, people who were otherwise eligible to participate as jurors were routinely — and uncontroversially — struck or exempted from service due to limited mobility, vision and hearing loss, and caregiving responsibilities. Recent experience …

The Incongruence Principle Of Evidence, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Evidence law assumes that the meaning and value of information at trial is equal to the meaning and value of the same information in the real world. This premise underlies evidence policy, judicial applications of evidence law, and instructions to jurors for evaluating evidence. However, it is incorrect, and the law’s failure to recognize this hinders its aims of accuracy and equality.

In this article, I draw on fields outside of law - including Bayesian inference and cognitive psychology - to develop a model of evidence that describes how jurors combine new evidence with prior beliefs (or “priors”) to make …

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 …

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 …

Interrogating The Nonincorporation Of The Grand Jury Clause, Roger A. Fairfax Jr.

Cardozo Law Review

With the Supreme Court’s recent incorporation—in Ramos v. Louisiana—of the Sixth Amendment’s jury unanimity requirement to apply to the states, the project of “total incorporation” is all but complete in the criminal procedure context. Virtually every core criminal procedural protection in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to constrain not only the federal government, but also the states—with one exception. The Fifth Amendment’s grand jury right now stands alone as the only federal criminal procedural right the Supreme Court has permitted states to ignore. In one of the earliest incorporation …

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 …

The Jury Veto, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

While the American civic religion is to be distrustful of government, feelings of discontent regarding our systems of criminal investigation and adjudication feel historic. And while those systems are capable of great carnage en route, the endgame is, ultimately, criminal punishment. Yet before punishment can be imposed, every prosecution—and therefore every defendant—is meant to encounter a potential “circuit breaker”: the jury. I propose that we re-inject this democratic voice into our criminal adjudications, but through an entirely novel structure: the defendant (and perhaps the prosecutor) would have the choice of invoking a jury empowered to ‘veto’ any judicial sentence. By …

The Jury Trial Reinvented, Christopher Robertson, Michael Shammas

Faculty Scholarship

The Framers of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution recognized that jury trials were essential for maintaining democratic legitimacy and avoiding epistemic crises. As an institution, the jury trial is purpose-built to engage citizens in the process of deliberative, participatory democracy with ground rules. The jury trial provides a carefully constructed setting aimed at sorting truth from falsehood.
/="/">
/="/">Despite its value, the jury trial has been under assault for decades. Concededly, jury trials can sometimes be inefficient, unreliable, unpredictable, and impractical. The COVID–19 pandemic rendered most physical jury trials unworkable but spurred some courts …

A Critique Of Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 23(B)(2)(B) And A Proposal To Level The Playing Field For Defendants, Zachary Buda

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Benevolent Exclusion, Anna Offit

Washington Law Review

The American jury system holds the promise of bringing common sense ideas about justice to the enforcement of the law. But its democratizing effect cannot be realized if a segment of the population faces systematic exclusion based on income or wealth. The problem of unequal access to jury service based on socio-economic disparities is a longstanding yet under-studied problem—and one which the uneven fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbated. Like race- and sex-based jury discrimination during the peremptory challenge phase of jury selection, the routine dismissal of citizens who face economic hardship excludes not only people but also the …

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.

Introduction To Reviving The American Jury, Nancy S. Marder

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

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.

How To Talk So Juries Will Listen, Janet Randall

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: Juries Don’T Get It, Hon. James A. Shapiro, Karl T. Muth

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been de rigueur in criminal cases almost since the dawn of the republic. It is based on the premise that it is better to let several guilty people go free in order to save one innocent person from wrongful conviction. The jury in a criminal case is not merely an audience. It is the central mechanism without which the wheels of American criminal justice cannot turn-- and operates as the final safeguard against a grave error. However, while the Constitution describes the importance, composition, and role of the jury, it does not explicitly …

Behind Bartkus: A Flamboyant Lawyer, A Vindictive Judge, And The Untold Story Of Double Jeopardy’S Dual Sovereignty, Stephen E. Henderson, Dean Strang

Faculty Articles

A young defense attorney earns his client, charged in federal court with bank robbery, a jury acquittal. (It’s the attorney’s first.) One would expect the impartial judge to thank the jury for its service. Instead, this one harangues both jury and defense attorney (“entailing changes in his complexion from red to purple to dead white”), publicly rails against the verdict, attempts to bar the jurors from future service, refuses to release the defendant, and successfully prods prosecutors to bring a duplicative state prosecution that would end in conviction for the same crime. To anyone who respects the rule of law—or …

The Trial Lottery, Kiel Brennan-Marquez, Darryl Brown, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

Juries are the lifeblood of our criminal justice system. As the Framers clearly understood, and as the Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed in recent years, their value goes far beyond accuracy in individual cases. Criminal juries are a democratic bulwark against overzealous state power; they keep prosecutors and police in check. Accordingly, the disappearance of traditional criminal trials is not just a problem for individual defendants. It is a problem for all of us. In this Article, we propose a novel mechanism to (partly) restore the criminal jury to its rightful pride of place—a trial lottery. In short, a small …

Pandemic, Protest, And Agency: Jury Service And Equal Protection In A Future Defined By Covid-19, Patrick C. Brayer

Faculty Works

This essay calls for an expansive view of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection against the discriminatory empanelment of juries grounded upon a culture of systemic racism. For an individual juror fundamental elements of survival during a pandemic are access to health care, safe transportation, and connective technology. Yet, structural and systemic racism precludes many potential jurors of color from securing these necessary supports, thus denying them the ability to be recognized on juror source list or accommodated for jury service. Jury service is a direct and impactful act of citizen agency over the justice system, and the systemic exclusion of individuals …

Awakening The American Jury: Did The Killing Of George Floyd Alter Juror Deliberations Forever?, Tamara F. Lawson

Articles

In the summer of 2020, the witnessing of George Floyd's death triggered an outpouring of public expression far beyond other cases in modern times. While the experience led some to advocate for reform and participate in antiracism rallies, marches, and campaigns, it also forced many others into internal reflection, awareness, and awakening to the knowledge of a lived experience with police different from their own. The gruesome realities of the video were irreconcilable with those prior beliefs and did not comport with any moral or legal standards of dignity. Prior to witnessing George Floyd's death on video at the hands …

Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall—Biased Impartiality, Appearances, And The Need For Recusal Reform, Zygmont A. Pines

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The article focuses on a troubling aspect of contemporary judicial morality.

Impartiality—and the appearance of impartiality—are the foundation of judicial decision-making, judicial morality, and the public’s trust in the rule of law. Recusal, in which a jurist voluntarily removes himself or herself from participating in a case, is a process that attempts to preserve and promote the substance and the appearance of judicial impartiality. Nevertheless, the traditional common law recusal process, prevalent in many of our state court systems, manifestly subverts basic legal and ethical norms.

Today’s recusal practice—whether rooted in unintentional hypocrisy, wishful thinking, or a pathological cognitive dissonance— …

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 …

The Need For A Historical Exception To Grand Jury Secrecy In The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Daniel Aronsohn

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

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, …