Federal Law analysis

Taylor, 554 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1977). The flirt find that juryman #6 could remain fair and impartial, but his discretion was non sound based on join States v. Nell, 526 F.2d 1223. 1229 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1976). In U.S. v. Nell it was determined that when a prospective jurywoman reveals actual bend, or when bias is implied be perplex the juror has some special relationship to a party, the administration must dismiss the prospective juror for cause.

In United States v. Martin, 749 F.2d 1514, 1517-18 (11th Cir. 1985) it was ruled that when a juror demonstrates that she squirt lay away any opinion she might hold and render a judgment based solely on the evidence presented in court, indeed dismissal is not required. The Court obviously do this determination in the Mays case. juryman #6 did maintain that she can remain fair and impartial in her decision and the Court agreed, claiming Mays is "not entitled to a perfect jury, only?a fair one." It would be difficult to come to such a conclusion in light of the juror's stated bias against medicine dealers. In the Duhaime's Law Dictionary, voir dire is defined as, "A mini-hearing held during a trial on the admissibility of contested evidence. For example, a defendant whitethorn object to a plaintiff's witness. The court would suspend the trial, immediately command over a hearing on the standing of the proposed witness, and then resume the trial with or without the witness, or with any

United States v. Serino, 163 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 1999).

The Court erred in its denial of cause challenge because it did not probe juror #6's biases based on personal experience, merely taking her leger for it. This is not sound enough discretion on behalf of the Court. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 104 S. Ct. 845, 78L. Ed.

2d 663 (1983), the Court determined that "the bias of a juror will rarely be admitted by the juror himself, partly because the juror may have an interest in concealing his own bias and partly because the juror may be unaware of it."

The Court also erred in denying cause because peremptory challenges were not subject to harmless error review, a finding in Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235 (2nd Circ. 1998). This is particularly true in light of the decision in United States v. Serino, 163 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 1999), in which it was found the "defendant gave valid neutral reason for contact juror." Mr. Mays provided valid neutral reasons for striking Juror #6, based on her admitted hatred of drug dealers based on her personal experiences. Further, defendant gave valid neutral reason with respect to the admitted inability of Juror #6 to stay awake for a period of both hours when sitting still.

The Court denied the request and Juror #6 served on the jury. The Court's error in denying the cause challenge was properly continue and violated Mays' right to a fair trial. The conviction should be reversed and the cause must be remanded for a innovative trial.

Longshore v. Fronrath Chevrolet, Inc., 527 So., 2d 922, 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988).

Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!