Jury Trial Analysis

Topics: United States Constitution, Jury, Supreme Court of the United States Pages: 6 (1321 words) Published: April 16, 2015


Jury Trial Analysis
Conrad N. Torres
CJA/364
November 4, 2014
Instructor: Drew Christensen
Jury Trial Analysis
In the United States citizens are given certain rights when they are accused of a crime and are facing a trial. They have the right to a speedy trial, this it to avoid a person being charged with a crime them spending a prolonged period incarcerated prior to conviction. They have the right to an impartial jury. Jurors are interviewed by both the prosecution and the defense to endure that the defendant is not known to them and that if the potential jurors do have any knowledge of the crime, gained via the media or sources other than personal knowledge. Defendants are also entitled to an impartial judge. Judges are held to a higher standard that than of people in other jobs. They are required to put aside personal opinions and make decisions based solely on the facts as they are presented in court. The Right to a Speedy Trial

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution promises a person blamed of a crime the right to a speedy trial. The Founding Father of the United States added this amendment to the Constitution for two reasons. First they wanted to prevent those accused but not yet convicted of crimes from spending a long period of time incarcerated when they have not been found guilty of it yet (Worrall, 2012). Second of the reasoning was the fear that if the trial was delayed the memories of witness could fade, witnesses themselves could disappear, and evidence could be lost. While both the prosecution and defense could be hurt by the second reason, the first is the most important as the defendant would be deprived of life, liberty, and ability to provide for themselves and their family (Worrall, 2012).

In the People v. Romeo the defendant was a suspect in a 1985 murder. He had been ordered to provide a DNA sample but before he was to appear and provide it he absconded to Canada. While in Canada he murdered a law enforcement officer during a routine traffic stop. Soon after committing that crime he returned to the U.S. and was taken into custody in Boston (Rowley, 2010). Romeo was detained in federal custody despite the fact being prosecuted for the crime in Canada, and was awaiting extradition. During that time his DNA was obtained, it was a match to evidence from the 1985 crime. On March 27, 1987 he was indicted for two counts of second degree murder. Officials in Suffolk County New York requested that Romeo remain in the United States to face these charges (Rowley, 2010). April 1, 1987 Romeo invoked his right to a speedy trial, and made a formal request that he be arraigned and tried for these crimes immediately. On May 15 of that same year Canadian officials drafted a memo to Suffolk County administrators asserting that the agreement between the United States and Canada permitted Romeo to be sent back to the U.S. for his hearing there after his trial in Canada, even if he was convicted. The letter did not say for sure that his return would be quick but it was encouraging to officials (Rowley, 2010). May 29 Romeo filed a motion, requesting that he be tried immediately. The court mistakenly believed that his Canadian trial would not interfere with his (Romero) right to a speedy trial and allowed him to be sent back to Canada to face the accusations there. Romeo was convicted in Canada and sentenced to twenty five years (Rowley, 2010). Officials of Suffolk County never requested that Romeo be returned to the United States to face his charges there. Romeo, in 1999 submitted a motion to discharge the Suffolk County charges due to the fact that his requests, and rights, for a speedy trial were violated. This case was disputed and ended up in the Appellate Division in New York which agreed with him and his indictment was dismissed (Rowley, 2010). The Right to an Impartial Jury

The Sixth Amendment also includes the right to trial by an impartial jury. It should be noted this...

References: Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986)
Pettegrew, H. L. (1986). Sixth and Eight Amendments--Erosion of Defendant’s Right to an Impartial Jury and a Fundamentally Fair Trial. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 77(3), 796-820.
Rowley, A.L. (2010). Court of Appeals of New York: People v. Romeo. Touro Law Review, 26(3), 907-923.
Tarkington, M. (2011), Attorney speech and the right to an impartial Judge . The Review of Litigation, 30(4), 849-895.
Worrall, John. (2012) “Criminal Procedure” From First Contact to Appeal, Fourth Addition. Published: Pearson Education
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay about Jury Trial Analysis
  • Essay about Jury Trial Analysis
  • Juries Essay
  • Essay on Jury Selection
  • Jury Trial Analysis Paper
  • jury trial analysis Essay
  • Jury Selection Essay
  • Discuss whether trial by jury should be abolished in the English legal system? Critically analyse the advantages and disadvantages of the...

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free