Law Case Analysis

The trial court erred by denying the cause challenge brought by Mays’ attorney.

Federal law governs challenges for cause not state law. In Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir.), (1998), the Court maintained “The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants a verdict by impartial, indifferent jurors.” Juror #6, Louise Maynard, said she “despises drug dealers” because of losing a cousin to drug use. The trial court violated Mays’ right to a fair trial by an impartial jury when it denied May’s cause challenge to Juror #6. Precedent for this interpretation comes in Berry Kessler v. State of Florida, 852 So. 2d (Fla. 1991)). Although Juror #6 stated that she could presume Mays innocent, it is unrealistic to believe she could completely set aside the very prejudicial and personal attitudes she expressed and base her verdict entirely on the evidence presented at trial and the court’s instructions on the law.

In United States v. Toomey, 764 F.2d 678, 683 (9th Cir. 1985) the Court rules that “A defendant is entitled to voir dire that fairly and adequately probes a juror’s qualifications.” The court erred in deny cause challenge lacking a fair and adequate probe of Juror #6. While the decision to strike a prospective juror for cause “upon a suggestion of impartiality is within the sound discretion of the trial judge”, the tr

. . .
sel when suggested that Juror #6 did seem to be predisposed toward the prosecution. Juror #6 readily admitted it was because of personal negative experiences that she had come to “despise drug dealers.” Defendant is an alleged drug dealer. It seems matter of fact that anyone despising a drug dealer is going to have a difficult time admitting evidence and applying law in a fair and impartial manner. The Court erred in denying the cause challenge because it took its own discretion to undermine the ruling in U.S. v. Tergzes. The Court did not provide an adequate probe into the qualifications of Juror #6 before coming to such a determination. Further, an extended voir dire should have been ordered by the Court because of the danger that Juror #6’s biased statements might infect other jurors. A jury panel’s exposure to biased or prejudicial remarks may be inflammatory. Exposure to such statements made by a prospective juror requires that the trial judge voir dire the entire panel “to determine whether the panel has in fact been infected”, Mach v. Stewart, 129, F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 1997). The court erred in denying cause challenge presented by Mays because it did not voir dire the entire panel to see if the inflammatory st
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Remarks Juror, Mach Stewart, United Serino, United Tergzes, Law Dictionary, Ct App, Inc Greenwood, Dyer Calderon, United Toomey, Tergzes Court, juror #6, voir dire, cause challenge, court erred, 9th cir, denying cause, fair impartial, court erred denying, drug dealers, erred denying, prospective juror, erred denying cause, denying cause challenge, remain fair impartial, 9th cir 1998,
Approximate Word count = 1690
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)