Selection of the Jury
T
he
racial composition of the jury was strongly influenced by the
decision of the prosecution to file the Simpson case in downtown Los
Angeles rather than (as is usually the case) in the judicial district
where the crime occurred – in this case, Santa Monica. Had the
case be filed in Santa Monica, the Simpson jury would have been
mostly white instead of, as was the case, mostly African-American.
With poll data showing that most whites believed Simpson to be guilty
and most blacks believing him to be not guilty, the decision to file
the case in Santa Monica may have been the biggest mistake the
prosecution made.
Jury selection got underway on September 24, 1994 in Judge Ito's courtroom. Present that day were 250 potential members of the jury and the judge, Simpson, and lawyers for both sides. Judge Ito explained procedures to the potential jury members and warned them that the trial might last several months. The remark about the expected length of the trial prompted Simpson to moan loudly, "Oh, God, no." Ito told jurors they must complete a 79-page, 294-question questionnaire including questions proposed by both the prosecution and defense. In addition, they were to complete a one-page "hardship" questionnaire designed to determine jurors who could be initially excluded from the selection process. Potential jurors complained about the lengthy questionnaire, which took about four hours for many people to complete. They also were overheard muttering complaints about the personal nature of many of the questions - questions about their beliefs concerning the causes of domestic violence, about their feelings concerning interracial marriages, about whether they "ever provided a urine sample to be analyzed for any purpose."
Jury selection continued for two months. Judge Ito excluded from consideration potential jurors who violated his strict rules relating to exposure to the media. One juror was excluded for watching cartoons with her children, another for waking up to a clock radio. On October 18, Faye Resnick's book on Nicole Simpson's relationship with O. J. hit the bookstores, causing Ito to order a temporary halt to jury selection and to tell potential jurors "I forgot to tell you to stay out of bookstores."
During the voir dire process, each potential juror took a seat at a conference table. Also seated at the table were lawyers for both sides and Simpson, sitting not more than six feet from the people that might soon judge him. The object of voir dire, from each side's perspective, is not to get a fair jury, but rather a prejudiced one, one prejudiced in their favor. In theory, what results is a fair jury, one from which both sides have excluded potential jurors that are least likely to be sympathetic to their cause. Jurors who give answers that indicate that they have prejudged the case can be challenged for cause, others can be excluded using a limited number of peremptory challenges. Attorneys can exercise their peremptory challenges for almost any reason (body language, appearance, dissatisfaction with answers) but not for reasons of race or sex. Every challenge by the prosecution of a potential black juror caused Cochran (defense attorney) to approach the bench and suggest that the challenge may have been racially motivated. This tactic may have worked to dissuade the prosecution from challenging some black jurors. It was no secret that the prosecution wanted white jurors and the defense wanted black jurors.
The defense poured great effort into the jury selection process. Consultant Dmitrius coordinated massive data on each of the jury finalists, including their answers to the questionnaire, responses and body language during voir dire, and other data the defense had managed to collect. This data was put into a computer and each juror ranked according to their likely sympathy to the defense.
By November 3, an initial jury of twelve had been selected. The jury consisted of 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Caucasian, half Native American, and 1 Caucasian female. Fifteen alternates were selected over the next few weeks.
On December 4, the jury was assembled and given cautionary instructions by Judge Ito. They were told that the trial would begin on January 4, and that they could expect to be sequestered for the duration of the several-month trial.
(c) Find English equivalents:
опасный уголовный преступник
заявить о нежелании оспаривать обвинение
совместное владение, при котором каждый совладелец имеет право распоряжения своей частью имущества
начать проводить в жизнь, осуществлять; пускать в ход
допрос кандидатов в присяжные; официальное ознакомление судьи, представителей защиты и обвинения с кандидатурами присяжных при их отборе из группы кандидатов [jury panel] для выяснения их беспристрастности и непредубежденности
необъективный, предвзятый, пристрастный, тенденциозный
предрешать, решать заранее
отвод по конкретному основанию
отвод без указания причины
(d) Answer the following questions:
1) What was the main mistake of the prosecution?
2) Why the questionnaire was so long? What were personal questions about? Why?
3) How long did the jury selection continue? Why?
4) Why did judge Ito order the potential jurors to stay out of the media and bookstores?
5) What is the purpose of voir dire?
6) What is the difference between challenge for cause and peremptory challenge?
7) What did the defense do to dissuade the prosecution from challenging some black jurors? Why?
8) Why the jurors were sequestered for the duration of the several-month trial?
TASK 7. The word TAX has the following meanings in legal Russian: 1)налог; 2) облагать налогом; 3) таксировать, определять размер (о судебных издержках). Match the following English expressions with their Russian equivalents:
1) tax in kind 2) tax on land 3) ad valorem tax 4) buried tax 5) death tax 6) income tax 7) court taxes 8) back taxes 9) single tax |
a) налог, включенный в стоимость товара b) налог со стоимости c) недоимки d) единый налог e) судебные издержки f) подоходный налог g) налог на наследство h) натуральный налог i) поземельный налог |
