The Sixth Amendment - Page 3

RightinNYC · 10-16-07, 06:37 PM

Dammit, you made me go out and look this up

:

Quote:

A jury's impartiality may not be assumed without inquiry, as in the case of a judge. Jurors are drawn from the general body of the community for a short term of service, usually lasting a few weeks, and then return to their customary occupations with neither training nor traditions of impartiality. They must often be unaware of their own disqualification in specific cases, especially since the standards for jury service differ in various parts of the country. Litigants therefore have the right, at the least, to some surface information regarding the prospective jurors. Such information may uncover ground for challenge for cause. If it does not, it will be available in the intelligent use of the peremptory challenge, which is the antithesis of challenge for cause.

Kiernan v. Van Schaik, C.A.3d, 1965, 347 F.2d 775, 779; Freedman, J.

RightinNYC · 10-16-07, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

What you describe here is a problem to be solved, not a unalterable "reality" we must operate under.

This is off topic, but how would you propose to resolve it without infringing on people's rights?

RightinNYC · 10-16-07, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

I disagree. The explicit language of the 6th prohibits this jury tampering.

Like I noted above, its a fact that no court in the US has (or will ever) read the 6th to prohibit voir dire. That just isn't up for debate.

Iriemon · 10-16-07, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

I disagree. The explicit language of the 6th prohibits this jury tampering.

Besides, the term is french, reason enough to throw it out

The 6th says you are entitled to an impartial jury.

How else would you propose that determination be made?

Iriemon · 10-16-07, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

You say tomato I say tomahto. They have no more business eliminating my potential jurors than they do hand-picking my eventual ones.

They do, because they are entitled to an impartial jury too.

Quote:

I disagree. The biases of the average citizen are part of what protects me.
This is why we use a jury system in the first place. The average joe has biases, and I dare anyone to claim the founders were unaware of that fact.

How would it be fair if several members of the jury pool were biased because they were related to the opposing party and his lawyer?

Iriemon · 10-16-07, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

A better way was described in Philadelphia in 1789.

That is the way we do it. Voire dire is to get an impartial jury, just like they described in 1789.

Voidwar · 10-16-07, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

That is the way we do it. Voire dire is to get an impartial jury, just like they described in 1789.

This is deceptive.

There is no mention of Voir Dire in the Constitution, which is the source of the 1789 reference.

RightinNYC · 10-16-07, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

This is deceptive.

There is no mention of Voir Dire in the Constitution, which is the source of the 1789 reference.

There's no mention of Miranda Rights, the Internet, flag-burning, or lethal injection in the Constitution, yet all of those are protected or mandated by it.

Voidwar · 10-16-07, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

This is off topic, but how would you propose to resolve it without infringing on people's rights?

fines based on net worth ?

Suspension of voting rights until jury duty is completed ?

One way or another, this could be addressed, so it is unfair to assume that it is a problem we just have to live with. The state's need for jurors is legitimate, so punitive measures for jury duty avoidance are legitimate.

Voidwar · 10-16-07, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

There's no mention of Miranda Rights, the Internet, flag-burning, or lethal injection in the Constitution, yet all of those are protected or mandated by it.

I disagree with this analysis.

They are not protected or mandated by it. If so, they would be in there, in writing, and would require a constitutional amendment to remove.

The things you mention are from precedent, which can be overturned by the next judge with a similar case. The Constitution is not so easily reversed.