Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Sixth Amendment requires the jury to be selected from judicial districts ascertained by statute. In Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U.S. 73 (1904), the Supreme Court ruled that the place where the offense is charged to have occurred determines a trial's location. Where multiple districts are alleged to have been locations of the crime, any of them ...
The Vicinage Clause is a provision in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution regulating the vicinity from which a jury pool may be selected. The clause says that the accused shall be entitled to an "impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law". [1]
A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. [1] It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system. Laws and regulations governing jury selection and conviction/acquittal requirements vary from state to state (and are not available in courts of American Samoa), but the fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the ...
Jury duty or jury service is a service as a juror in a legal proceeding. Different countries have different approaches to juries: [ 1 ] variations include the kinds of cases tried before a jury, how many jurors hear a trial, and whether the lay person is involved in a single trial or holds a paid job similar to a judge , but without legal ...
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which held that systematically excluding women from a venire, or jury pool, by requiring (only) them to actively register for jury duty violated the defendant's right to a representative venire. [1]
Pages in category "United States Sixth Amendment jury case law" The following 32 pages are in this category, out of 32 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. A.
State where a member of the jury, against the direct instructions by the judge to not use the Internet, looked up the definition of the illness that the individual on trial was stated to be suffering. This jury member also looked up symptoms and whether lying was an effect of suffering with this mental illness. [4]
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey [1] to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. [2]