Juries; Fair trials Flashcards
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
Incorporation Case
Held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause secures the right to trial by jury in state criminal cases.
Burch v. Louisiana (1979)
A conviction by a nonunanimous six-person jury in a state criminal trial for a nonpetty offense violates the right of an accused to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
*unanimous means majority of jurors agree on decision
Williams v. Florida (1970)
Held that the Fifth Amendment does not entitle a defendant in a criminal trial to refuse to provide details of his alibi witnesses to the prosecution, and that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to have 12 members.
Apodaca v. Oregon (1972)
Held that non unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.
Ballew v. Georgia (1978)
Held that a trial by jury of less than six members violated the accused’s right to a trial by jury as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids prosecutors from challenging potential jurors soley on the basis of race to secure an all-white jury.
Powers v. Ohio (1991)
Held that prosecutors’ use of peremptory challenges to exclude blacks from juries trying white defendants violates the equal protection clause.
*a defendant’s or lawyer’s objection to a proposed juror, made without needing to give a reason.
Georgia v. McCollum (1992)
Held that it was unconstitutional in criminal trials for defendants’ attorneys, no less than for prosecutors, to exclude jurors solely on the basis of their race.
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994)
Held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids gender discrimination in the exclusion of potential jurors from jury service.
Shepard v. Maxwell (1966)
The massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity attending petitioner’s prosecution prevented him from receiving a fair trial consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Maryland v. Craig (1990)
Held that individuals charged with child abuse have no constitutional right to confront, at least once, their young accusers.
Michigan v. Bryant (2011)
Held that a dying victim’s statements identifying the assailant could be introduced at trial against the defendant.
Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011)
A second surrogate analyst’s testimony about the statements in the forensic report of a separate certifying analyst violates the Confrontation Clause.
