PEOPLE V JONES - THE JURY MUST BE DRAWN FROM THE DISTRICT OF THE CRIME

• NCJ Number: 14981
• Journal: Hastings Law Journal Volume: 25 Issue: 3 Dated: (FEBRUARY 1974) Pages: 547-574
• Author(s): J E DARR
• Date Published: 1974
• Length: 28 pages
• Corporate Author: University of California
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Historical Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

IN THIS CASE, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULED (BY A 4 TO 3 SPLIT DECISION) THAT THE RELEVANT JURY SELECTION DISTRICT CREATED BY STATE LEGISLATION MUST BE CONSIDERED THE DISTRICT OF THE CRIME FOR SIXTH AMENDMENT PURPOSES.

Abstract

THE DISSENT INTERPRETED THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AS PERMITTING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT TO BE THE DISTRICT OF THE CRIME. THIS NOTE CONTENDS THAT NO COMPELLING AUTHORITY FOR EITHER THE MAJORITY'S OR THE DISSENT'S POSITION CAN BE LOCATED IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OR IN PRIOR CASE LAW. THIS NOTE EXAMINES THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS WHICH THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE BUT FAILED TO DISCUSS, INCLUDING THE HISTORICAL CONCEPT OF A JURY DISTRICT IN RELATION TO CURRENT JURY DISTRICTS, THE INTEREST OF THE ACCUSED IN THE JURY, THE INTEREST OF SOCIETY IN THE JURY, AND THE INTEREST OF SOCIETY IN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE AS JURORS. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE MAJORITY REACHED THE RESULT MOST COMPATIBLE WITH SOCIETY'S INTERESTS. A DISCUSSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT REVEALS TWO BASES ON WHICH THE MAJORITY OPINION MIGHT HAVE RESTED - THE INTEREST OF THE ACCUSED AND THE INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION TO SUGGESTING THESE TWO EXPLANATIONS, THIS NOTE DISCUSSES THE SCOPE OF BOTH THE MAJORITY'S HOLDING AND THE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THAT HOLDING WHICH THE MAJORITY STATED IN DICTA. FOUR POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF THE JONES HOLDING FOR FUTURE CALIFORNIA CASES ARE ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)