By Debra Perlin / Just Security
With the indictment of former President Donald Trump, the U.S. justice system is putting teeth behind the idea that no one in a democracy is above the law. As this case winds its way through the court system, the weeks and months ahead will be contentious. There is no denying the unique circumstances, logistics, pressures, and scrutiny associated with indicting a former president. One of the judiciary’s early challenges will be maintaining Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury to dispense impartial justice. Federal and state courts frequently confront high-profile and politically sensitive cases against elected officials, and the U.S. judiciary’s procedures and legal standards were designed to meet this moment.
The Sixth Amendment provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” While it will be practically impossible to find a juror who is entirely unaware of who Trump is and has not been exposed to at least some media detailing the allegations against him, the Supreme Court has made clear that an impartial jury protected by the Sixth Amendment “does not require ignorance.” What is required, is that the jurors themselves are unbiased, meaning that they are willing to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented rather than on the basis of outside influences. Impermissible outside influences include both attempts at witness tampering and juror animus, such as in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado where the Supreme Court threw out a criminal conviction after two jurors made clear statements indicating that racial animus was used to convict a criminal defendant.
In high profile and emotionally charged cases, the prosecution and defense will go through a lengthy process, where prospective jurors are questioned about their background and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. If questions of bias arise after a jury has been empaneled, a trial judge can conduct a hearing, in which the defense participates, to determine if impartiality has been undermined. In October 2022, it took a New York court just three days to seat a jury in the tax fraud case against the Trump Organization, proving that an impartial jury in a Trump case can not only be found, but can be seated in a reasonable period of time.
Read more of this story
(Visited 3 times, 3 visits today)
