Judicial Override in Alabama

Judicial override is a concept that has been in place since the late 1970s. It’s a permissive doctrine that gives state trial judges the option to override a jury’s sentencing determination and institute a sentence the judge believes is more suitable. In Alabama, judicial override has been used frequently to override jury verdicts of life without parole for the death penalty. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to grant certiorari on the question of whether Alabama’s use of the judicial override option violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury as well as the Eighth Amendment’s prohibitions on arbitrary and capricious death sentences and cruel and unusual punishment.

Criminal Trials and PowerPoint: The Importance of Juror Engagement

View image | gettyimages.com

One huge hurdle that litigators encounter during trials is not only meeting their burden of proof to prevail, but also keeping the jury engaged.  A jury trial, especially in more serious or complex matters is not the three minute clip that you see on television or in the movies. Trials can be long, often extending over months, depending on the matter at hand.  Throughout that time, we have a jury box of humans who are taking in all of this information and then tasked with deliberating to render a verdict.  I specifically point to the jurors as humans, because as humans we have shifting attention spans.  This is why it is extremely important to put on compelling and engaging presentations to the jury.  In the criminal context, it can be very powerful to display demonstrative evidence in a memorable manner.

Determining Jury Instructions

In 1998 the defendant, Cedrick Shuler, 36, shot and killed Renee LaShawn Best, 26, in Southeast Washington as he fired at a man he believed killed one of his friends. The trial court used two theories of mens rea to instruct the jury on first-degree murder while armed: first, Mr. Shuler intended to kill Ms. Best, or second, Mr. Shuler’s intention to kill transferred to Ms. Best under the transferred intent doctrine.

Jones v. United States: Punishment Without Conviction?

View image | gettyimages.com

Federal sentencing law is widely applied to punish offenders not only for offenses of which they have been convicted, but also, in the same proceedings, for offenses of which they have not been convicted.  When convicted of at least one charge, a judge may consider relevant conduct in sentencing the defendant, and even increase the sentence for charges that were never charged.  Scholars are split on the subject.  On the one hand, some argue the use of relevant conduct at sentencing is often legitimate.  Others object to the practice because “the addition of the relevant conduct result[s] in the identical punishment range which the defendant would have encountered had [they] been convicted on all counts.”

Juries: The Community Conscience in America

There it is.  “Breaking News: Verdict reached!” scrolls along the bottom portion of your television screen or appears as a notification on your newest smart phone.  We have all seen it.  We have all waited in nervous anticipation for it.  We flick to the nearest news channel, turn up the volume, and crowd around the screen as the criminal trial enters the final stretch.  Those final words are then composedly uttered, “We the jury find the defendant…”

Why Not to Hate Jury Duty

Jury duty.  Universally dreaded, with sympathy for a friend or colleague who has been called, communicated with a knowing roll of the eyes, and a story about how to get out of it.  There is even a wikihow page entitled, "How to Get Out of Jury Duty."  Yet, jury duty is regarded by courts and civics teachers as one of the most important civic responsibilities a citizen can perform; it has been a crucial part of our democratic system for over 200 years.  The right to a jury trial is a fundamental right afforded by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  A defendant charged with anything more than a petty crime, typically a crime with a penalty of more than six months of incarceration, has a right to trial by jury, made up of between six and twelve of his or her "peers."[1]  Jurors are reflective of the community at large; there is no education requirement, though jurors must be citizens, over the age of eighteen, and fluent in English, with few other restrictions.      

UDC School of Law Professor Andrew Ferguson Weighs in on the Role of Juries and Their Verdicts

On Saturday, July 13, 2013, the jury in the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman returned a verdict of not guilty for second-degree murder and manslaughter for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.  After the jury returned the verdict, an expected flurry of news and social media erupted, some in support of the verdict and many others criticizing it.  Given the contentious issues surrounding the case, a vast amount of media attention has honed into the jury and what occurred during the jury's deliberation.  One can hope that the jury deliberation of the Zimmerman trial was similar to the one that took place in the famous stage play and movie, Twelve Angry Men, where the jurors carefully examined all the evidence in their quest for the truth and banished personal prejudices from their deliberation.  On the other hand, many fear that racial biases may have affected the deliberation of the Zimmerman jury that was made up of five Caucasian women and one Hispanic woman.  Whether the deliberation was similar to that of Twelve Angry Men or corrupted by racial bias, many questions remain.

In his article, "The Zimmerman Trial and the Meaning of Verdicts," Professor Andrew Ferguson of the University of the District of Columbia, discusses the Zimmerman jury, the (at the time undelivered) verdict, as well as juries and their verdicts in general.