U.S. Supreme Court Says Jury Selection Should Be Open To Public

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

January 19, 2010, 2:49PM

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution’s guarantee of a public trial means judges may not ordinarily close their courtrooms during jury selection.

In an unsigned 7-2 opinion, the court set aside the cocaine trafficking conviction of a Georgia man who challenged the trial judge’s decision to prohibit the public from attending proceedings in which lawyers questioned prospective jurors.

The Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to insist on a public trial, extending even to jury selection, the court said. In earlier rulings, the court had said that the public and the news media could assert their right to attend all the phases of a trial.

“Trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials,” the court said.

The significance of Tuesday’s ruling is that it gives defendants the ability to insist on a courtroom that is open to the public even when there is no news media interest in a case.

Read more: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/01/us_supreme_court_says_jury_sel.html

[meegbear]

1. But Prop 8 hearings can't be televised to the public ...

and how does this makes sense?

[FLyellowdog]

2. So, have you voted yet?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :hi:

[meegbear]

4. Right after work ...

then it'll say:

I live in Massachusetts ... I FUCKING VOTED SO STOP TELLING ME TO GET OUT AND VOTE, THANK YOU!

[FLyellowdog]

8. I kinda figured you'd be out there amongst 'em. GFY. nt

[Kali]

9. civil vs criminal?

[timeforpeace]

3. Good for The Supremes.

[T Wolf]

5. Fat Tony and Braindead Thomas were the dissenters. What a surprise. nt

[pleah]

6. K&R

[LiberalFighter]

7. And who were the two dissenters?

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. Thomas said the court should not have summarily reversed the Georgia court. The issues at stake are important enough to warrant argument before the justices, Thomas said.

[Igel]

10. Do you have the right to not answer questions during jury selection?

That could get interesting.

[enlightenment]

11. Every time I have been called for jury duty - and made it as far as

the courtroom - there have been dozens and dozens of people, just assembled from the potential pool of jurors. We ALL get to sit there during the selection process.

Technically, that makes the selection public, since unless and until someone is chosen to sit on the jury, they are nothing more (or less) than a citizen.

This sounds like overkill.

I once spent an entire day sitting on a hard bench, waiting to see if I would be called into the jury box. It would have been excruciatingly dull had it been a waiting room, but because it was in the courtroom we got to watch the selection process as it progressed. That was pretty interesting. In the end, I wasn't called up for the vetting process - so really, I was just "Jane Public", watching the show.