Hunters on jury

The jury should include the hunters as peers, no doubt, assuming they aren't disqualified for other reasons.

I didn't follow why the judge ruled a mistrial AFTER the prosecution had presented arguments. Do you have insight into why the mistrial was called. It seems that if it would have been for reasons of the jury selection, it would have occurred at the beginning of the trial.
 
I have not seen enough from the article to indicate who is guilty of what. I have the same question why did the Judge wait so long to declare a mistrial :confused: He was present for jury selection and questioning wasn't he? :confused:

According to the article neither of the parties requested a mistrial. The judge called for it. If he felt the defendent's attorney was playing shennanigans with the jury why not do it during the impaneling of the jurors?
 
The jury should include the hunters as peers, ...
Click to expand...
Why?

Not that the jury should not include hunters, but our Constitution does NOT guarantee anyone a right to a trial by a jury "of his peers." England has peers. The United States has people. The 6th Amendment states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, ...
Click to expand...

No peers mentioned. I wonder if the judge is an English immigrant.

It's also interesting that it was the defense who didn't want hunters on the jury. My guess is that she didn't want anybody on the jury who might harbor strong feelings about hunters who accidentally wander onto other hunters' turf.
 
Last edited:
While not specifically stated as such, the people of the State and district where the crime was committed are the peer referred to in jury of your peers.

This makes the assumption that the people who live where you do are of roughly like circumstances and moral outlook.

The "peers" of England are a specific social class (Peer of the Realm), and are not the common folk of a state or district.

There are seveal definitions of peer, and the one our legal system uses is that of someone from the same area, not that of an exact (or even a close) social and philosophical equal.
 
Why?

Not that the jury should not include hunters, but our Constitution does NOT guarantee anyone a right to a trial by a jury "of his peers."
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I never made any stipulation about what the Constitution says regarding juries and peers. I said that that jury should include hunters as peers. I personally think that juries should be comprised of folks who have an understanding of the types of circumstances surrounding the parameters of the trial. This is often contrary to what lawyers on one or both sides of the trial may think about how the jury should be comprised. Often one or both sides would prefer the jury to be ignorant of salient aspects of the topics pertaining to the case because then the lawyers will have a better chance to guide the jury in the direction preferred. It is often easier to manipulate others when you control the information they receive.
 
A colleague of mine, a PhD in biology, was called for jury duty. It was a case about pollution. One lawyer asked him if he would go only by the evidence presented to him and not use his expertise or discuss that in the jury room.

He said - NO - and guess what - buh, bye!

By the way, don't assume hunters will be on a gun person's side. One study found that hunters were negative on assault weapons as compared to nonhunting folks. The old black gun, sport debate.
 
The judge is an idiot. Batson challenges only apply when jurors are struck because of purposeful discrimination against a member of one of the traditionally protected classes such as race and sex. Hunters are not a protected class.

There is also no constitutional right to a jury of one's peers. That cannot be found in the Constitution. There is only a right to a jury that is impartial and from the vicinity where the crime occurred. From the 6th Amendment itself:

. . . the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . .
Click to expand...

Since the jury was sworn and the mistrial was not at the request of the defendant, there is a good chance that retrial will be barred by the double jeopardy clause. It's not clear cut but he may very well walk free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top