The Jury System Quiz

1. The jury system The jury system is central to U.S. democracy, and its origins can be found in the antecedents of the Republic. Article III of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that crimes shall be tried by juries and trials will be held in the state and district where the crimes were committed. Likewise, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees due process protections including speedy and public trials, impartial juries, the defendant being informed of the accusations, and the defendant's right to be confronted with witnesses against him or her. The idea of trial by jury predates the United States by hundreds of years. Due process principles, as outlined in the Magna Carta (1215), include that juries will be composed of “honest men of the neighborhood,” which speaks to the right to a jury of one’s peers. Jury service is required of citizens; states draw potential jurors from registered voter lists, state and local censuses, or from driver’s license and state identification renewals. To be excused from service, potential jurors must demonstrate that they cannot (hardship) or should not (bias) serve on a jury. Courts in the United States find that many citizens would prefer not to meet jury service obligations. Read the excerpts from a commentary about jury duty published in Forbes and answer the questions that follow. This is Why People Hate Jury Duty It’s true that many salaried workers can go to jury duty without losing pay or burning vacation days. But is it really a “paid vacation”? That depends on the nature of your job. If you’re just one interchangeable cog in a corporate or government machine, maybe you can sit on a jury and let your workload fall to your coworkers. But for a lot of salaried professionals, jury duty means being at the courthouse from 8 to 4 and then going to the office to handle a slew of matters that only you are equipped to handle. In 2008, my then-boyfriend sat on a murder trial in Queens, which took a week and a half. Most of his fellow jurors were public employees—on the last day, they even reached a verdict at 10 AM but insisted on waiting to deliver it so they could get a free lunch. But every afternoon after court, Dave was leaving Kew Gardens for Manhattan to do hours of work he couldn’t do during the day. When I was a banker, my boss spent two weeks on a grand jury, but that didn’t mean she wasn’t coming to the office. I even have a friend who is timing his move out of Washington D.C. to avoid compliance with a grand jury summons. If you have a job that you can just drop for a few days—and an employer willing to pay you while you don’t work—then sure, jury duty might be fun. Most people don’t fall into both of those categories. (Source: Josh Barro, “This Is Why People Hate Jury Duty,” Forbes, February 27, 2012, www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/02/27/this-is-why-people-hate-jury-duty) Legal Principle Legal Basis Magna Carta Juries are to be composed of “honest men of the neighborhood.” The Sixth Due process protections guaranteed to those accused of crimes include the right to a speedy and public trial and the right to be confronted with witnesses. Amendment Jury service is required of citizens who are selected from lists Various state laws of residents, registered voters, or recipients of driver’s licenses or state identification. Article III of the Crimes are to be tried by juries in the state in which the crime was committed. U.S. Constitution Points: 1/1 Close Explanation Explanation: There are four elements that make up the basis of American law with regard to juries, including the Magna Carta, which outlined the principle that juries will be comprised of “honest men of the neighborhood”; Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to a jury trial and requires trials to proceed in the state in which the alleged crimes took place; the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial as well as the right to be confronted with witnesses; and various state laws that mandate service on a jury to be drawn by selecting names compiled from lists of residents, registered voters, or driver’s license records. According to the author of the excerpt, who might find jury duty fun? Check all that apply. People employed by government or corporations that continue to pay salary during jury service Individuals who are free to put work on hold while on jury duty Those with an interest in the law College students with free time on their hands Points: 1/1 2. The structure of the U.S. court system Although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly create the federal court system, it does empower Congress to create courts inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court as it sees fit. The federal court system is organized in three layers; the highest is the Supreme Court. The lowest of these is the federal district courts, which serve as trial courts; one judge, or a jury, decides each case. Ninety-four federal district courts are distributed with at least one district in each state, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., and the three U.S. territories. The 94 districts are organized into 12 regional circuits. Each of the 12 circuits has a U.S. Court of Appeals, which hears appeals from the district courts within its circuit as well as from federal administrative agency decisions. Three-judge panels decide each case. Those seeking to appeal decisions made by circuit courts of appeal will next pursue their concerns before the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejects most appeals. Federal courts hear cases involving federal law, including cases involving crimes committed using the U.S. postal service, such as mail fraud. State courts hear cases involving state law. Read the following excerpts from a news report on a federal case and answer the questions that follow. 2 Chambersburg men sentenced in federal court for defrauding charities HARRISBURG—Two Chambersburg men were sentenced this week in federal court for a scheme to defraud charities. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that the former owner and general manager of the Gettysburg Auto Exchange were sentenced by the U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III. William C. Stake, 41, the former owner of Gettysburg Auto Exchange, was sentenced to 27 months in prison. David R. Burke, 65, the former general manager of the Gettysburg Auto Exchange, was sentenced to a year in prison and two years of supervised release. Both men were ordered to jointly pay $524,694 in restitution. According to U.S. Attorney Peter J. Smith, Stake and Burke were charged in November 2011 with operating and conspiring to operate a scheme to defraud charities that used the Gettysburg Auto Exchange to sell vehicles donated by private individuals for charitable causes. Gettysburg Auto Exchange agreed to assist nonprofit organizations that solicited the public to donate used vehicles to charities. The charities would then arrange with various used car dealers/auctions to sell the donated vehicles and to send the proceeds from the sale to the charities, which would then distribute the funds to the particular charitable causes and institutions. The nonprofit charities entered into agreements with the Gettysburg Auto Exchange to collect, transport and sell donated used vehicles and to send the proceeds to the charities, with the transportation fee and selling fee deducted from the proceeds by Gettysburg Auto Exchange. Stake, assisted by Burke, engaged in a scheme to defraud both the charities and the donors of the used vehicles by selling the vehicles and keeping a significant portion of the proceeds of the sale for himself. Stake created fictitious bills of sale indicating that the vehicles had been sold at less than the actual price. These fictitious bills of sale were then sent to the victim charities as proof that they had received the full sale price of the donated vehicle. As a result, the charities were defrauded of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Stake pleaded guilty to mail fraud and Burke pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. (Source: Staff Report, “2 Chambersburg Men Sentenced in Federal Court for Defrauding Charities,” Public Opinion Online, December 20, 2012, www.publicopiniononline.com/news/ci_22234684/2-chambersburg-men-sentenced-federal-courtdefrauding-charities) Which of the following is true of the federal courts? Check all that apply. The federal judiciary is structured with three layers including, from bottom to top: district courts, U.S. Courts of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court. There are 12 regional circuits; each has a U.S. Court of Appeals that operates with three-judge panels to hear appeals cases. The U.S. Courts of Appeals are trial courts presided over by a single judge or jury. Appeals made from the U.S. Courts of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court are often rejected. Points: 1/1 Close Explanation Explanation: The Constitution and acts of Congress have established a three-tiered federal judiciary. At the lowest level are the 94 federal district courts, presided over by a single judge or jury. At the intermediate level are the 12 U.S. Courts of Appeals, in which three-judge panels hear appeals from the district courts located in their circuit. At the top level is the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to select the cases it hears on appeal, and it rejects the vast majority of cases brought to it. Why were Stake and Burke sentenced to time in a federal prison, according to the article? Stake and Burke plead guilty and were sentenced by a federal court. After lengthy court proceedings, Stake and Burke were found guilty by a federal district court jury, and a federal district court judge sentenced them to time in federal prison for their crimes against charities. Found guilty by a Pennsylvania state court, the inmates were moved to federal prison because the state prison was overpopulated. 3. Supreme Court nominations The U.S. Constitution requires that Supreme Court justices be confirmed by a majority of the Senate upon presidential nomination. Chief justices are appointed using the same process even if they already hold a seat on the Supreme Court. The framers expected that the Court would be nonpartisan and neutral. Despite these intentions, court appointments often reflect party goals. In 1801, Marbury v. Madison emerged from President John Adams’s nomination of more than 50 Federalist judges so that he could leave a Federalist imprint before the Democratic-Republican Jefferson took office in March. Since then, critics suggest that presidents use Supreme Court nominations to advance and protect their party’s agenda. These critics suggest that loyalty to the nominating president and his or her party is now expected of appointed justices. Relatedly, Senate voting patterns also suggest that party matters in confirmations, as found in contentious confirmation hearings and divided votes. The Senate has a moderating influence on presidential appointments due to the lack of deference shown to presidential appointees by both parties. Today, presidents can expect that the opposition party will vote against their nominees, which means that their choice of nominees may be constrained if their party is not in control of the Senate. Examine the table and answer the questions that follow. Name of Justice Nominating President (in chronological order) Confirmation Vote Democratic Senate Vote Republican Senate Vote (Yes-No) (Yes-No) (52–0) (45–0) (9–47) (43–1) (Party) Date Anthony Kennedy Ronald Reagan (R) February 3, 1988 Clarence Thomas George H.W. Bush (R) October 15, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Bill Clinton (D) August 3, 1993 (56–0) (40–3) Stephen Breyer Bill Clinton (D) July 29, 1994 (55–0) (32–9) (23–22) (55–0) (4–41) (54–1) August 6, 2009 (58–0) (10–31) August 5, 2010 (58–1) (5–36) April 7, 2017 (3–45) (51–0) 1991 John Roberts, Jr. (Chief George W. Bush September 29, Justice) (R) 2005 Samuel Alito, Jr. Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch George W. Bush January 31, (R) 2006 Barack Obama (D) Barack Obama (D) Donald Trump (R) What evidence supports the statement that the nominations of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito were contentious? Check all that apply. Each justice received at least one “no” vote from members of the nominating president’s party. A substantial number of members of the party opposing the nominating president voted against their nomination. These judicial nominees were supported by members of their own party. Each justice received unanimous votes of support from the opposing party. Points: 1/1 Close Explanation Explanation: According to the table, the most contentious nominations to the Supreme Court included Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. Each of these justices received “no” votes from members of their nominating president’s own political party as well as substantial votes against their nomination from members of the opposition party of the president who nominated them. Which of the following statements accurately describes the information presented in the table? From the presidency of Ronald Reagan to the presidency of Donald Trump, even successful nominations to the Supreme Court have generally grown more contentious. Nominations to the Supreme Court tended to be more contentious during the 1980s and 1990s than they were during the 2000s and beyond. The opposition party in the Senate always defers to the president during nomination votes. 4. The Supreme Court and immigration The Supreme Court is the last appellate court in the federal court system. The decisions made by that court are shaped by the personalities and ideologies represented on the bench, and there are traditionally blocs that the justices fall into with a certain degree of consistency. That was challenged in 2016, as the death of Justice Antonin Scalia left a vacancy on the Supreme Court that went unfilled until 2017, when Neil Gorsuch was nominated and approved to the bench. One key issue that has come before the Supreme Court is immigration, and the validity of executive action taken to reform the immigration system. Soon after taking office, President Trump issued an executive order severely curtailing entrance to the United States by citizens of a number of predominantly Muslim nations, leading to an outcry and protests at airports. The ban was soon blocked by lower courts, as was a second version of the travel ban. The third iteration was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018. Watch the video and complete the table that follows. Transcript ABC News Videosource Indicate whether each of the following statements is true or false. Statement Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent in the Court’s decision. The policy originated in the House of Representatives. The ban upheld by the Supreme Court barred individuals from some nonMuslim countries. President Trump’s first travel ban was upheld by lower courts. President Trump did not mention banning Muslims from entering the United States during his campaign. 5. Judicial review, judicial activism, judicial restraint, and U.S Supreme Court decision making In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court gave itself the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Judicial review gives the Court lawmaking authority. Justices engaging in judicial activism are seen as using judicial review to make case law and are often criticized because they are seen as overstepping their constitutional boundaries. In taking over a process that the framers intended to leave to an elected True False Congress and president or to state legislatures within a checks-and-balances system, judicial activists become lawmakers outside public oversight. By contrast, justices who use judicial restraint are hesitant to overturn laws because they respect established lawmaking procedures. Judicial restraint advocates suggest that the Court should defer to legislatures and executive authorities who have been elected by the people the laws govern. Analysts who believe that judicial activism is a critical way to protect minorities contend that elected legislatures cannot be trusted to protect the rights of unpopular groups because they fear losing future elections if they do so. Read excerpts from two landmark court cases, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and answer the questions that follow. From Plessy v. Ferguson, an 1896 decision where the U.S. Supreme Court was asked whether a state law segregating railroad passengers based on race violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause even if the physical facilities were otherwise equal. So far, then, as a conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the question whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation, and with respect to this, there must necessarily be a large discretion on the part of the legislature. In determining the question of reasonableness, it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort and the preservation of the public peace and good order. (Judge Henry Brown, Case Opinion) (Source: “Plessy V. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537,” Justia, Henry Brown, last modified May 18, 1896, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/case.html) From Brown v. Board of Education, a 1954 decision where the U.S. Supreme Court was asked whether state law allowing segregation of public school students based on race violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause even if the physical facilities were otherwise equal. Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. Whatever may have been the extent of the psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Chief Justice Earl Warren, Case Opinion) (Source: “Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483,” Justia, Earl Warren, last modified May 17, 1954, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/case.html) Statement Proponents of this judicial theory contend that its use protects minority rights. These judicial theorists are hesitant to overturn laws out of respect for established lawmaking practices. Justices of this type use the power of judicial review to make Judicial Activism or Judicial Restraint Judicial activism Judicial restraint Judicial activism case law. Proponents of this judicial theory contend that the Court should leave lawmaking to those who were elected by the people the laws will govern. Judicial restraint Points: 1/1 Close Explanation Explanation: Judicial activists create new case law by using the power of judicial review to overturn existing laws passed by legislatures and enacted by executives. Proponents of this judicial theory contend that these actions are often necessary to protect minority rights. Those advocating judicial restraint are hesitant to overturn laws out of respect for established lawmaking procedures and contend that the Court should leave lawmaking to those who were elected by the people the laws will govern. Which of the following is an accurate statement about judicial power or judicial restraint? Check all that apply. The case of Brown v. Board of Education exemplifies judicial activism because the Court used the power of judicial review to overturn its own decision in Plessy v. Ferguson and laws in the South to find racial segregation to be an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case of Plessy v. Ferguson exemplifies judicial restraint because it finds that it is up to the discretion of the legislature of the state of Louisiana to regulate in such a way as to preserve public peace and good order. The case of Plessy v. Ferguson provides an example of judicial activism because it highlights the willingness of the Court to protect minority rights by using the power of judicial review to overturn legislation passed and enacted by elected public officials. The case of Brown v. Board of Education provides an example of judicial restraint because the justices upheld the right of elected governors and legislatures to continue to segregate schools in the South. 6. Judicial appointments by the president A key responsibility of the president is the nomination of judges to the Federal bench. Presidents nominate judges to the Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, including the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since 1982, U.S. District Courts, and the Court of International Trade. Presidents also appoint certain military and territorial judges. Presidents’ opportunities to nominate judges vary with vacancies, including retirements and deaths, the length of term, and the cooperation of the Senate. The Senate has the responsibility to offer “advise and consent” to the president’s nominees, which generally includes holding hearings in the Judiciary Committee and full confirmation votes on the Senate floor. Examine the graph and answer the questions that follow. Which president made the most appointments to the Supreme Court? George H.W. Bush Bill Clinton Barack Obama Ronald Reagan Points: 1/1 Which of the following statements is true? Check all that apply. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton made equal numbers of Supreme Court appointments. President Obama made fewer appointments to the Court of International Trade than George H.W. Bush. Bill Clinton made less than 300 appointments to District Courts. President George W. Bush made more appointments to the Courts of Appeals than Barack Obama. Points: 1/1 Close Explanation Explanation: