JURY TRIAL - THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN A STATE PROCEEDING BY A JURY DRAWN TO SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDE RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED VIOLATES THE VICINAGE PROVISION OF THE ...

• NCJ Number: 17663
• Journal: Catholic University Law Review Volume: 23 Issue: 2 Dated: (WINTER 1973) Pages: 394-401
• Author(s): W W OSBORNE
• Date Published: 1973
• Length: 8 pages
• Corporate Author: Catholic University of America
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT JONES ASSERTS NOT ONLY THAT THE COMMON LAW VICINAGE REQUIREMENT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, BUT THAT IT IS FUNCTIONALLY ESSENTIAL TO THE PURPOSE OF A JURY TRIAL.

Abstract

STATE AND U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS RELATING TO THE RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY A JURY SELECTED FROM THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED ARE REVIEWED. THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT, IN LIGHT OF THE LACK OF CLEAR PRECEDENT FOR THE JONES DECISION, A CLEAR AND MORE FORCEFUL PRESENTATION OF THE FUNCTION OF VICINAGE AND ITS RELATION TO THE PURPOSE OF THE JURY TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PERSUASIVE THAN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S RELIANCE ON TWO LOWER COURT CASES DEALING WITH JURY CROSS-SECTIONAL REPRESENTATION (ALVARADO V. STATE, ALASKA, 1971) AND CHANGE OF VENUE OVER DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS (STATE V. BROWN, D. MD. 1969). ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUGGESTED.