Business Law; The Trial Process
The Trial Process
The six amendment grants accused persons the right to a speedy and fair trial by an impartial jury of the state where the crime was committed (Powell, 1965). Moreover, the six amendment grants an accused the right to seek redress or a remedy in case of a wrongful conviction. In this direction, accused persons have the right to apply for a new trial in case of errors in the initial trial. Additionally, Jurors must consider the evidence presented at trial against the accused without prejudice opinions, and to deliberate in good faith to render a legal verdict.
Fair Trial
In the spirit of a right to a fair trial, a convicted person can apply for a new trial or retrial which restricts a case in front of a new jury. While courts are reluctant to grant new trial motions, they can be successful if an accused presents the evidence of significant errors during the trial or presents new exculpatory evidence. In brief, when determining whether retrial should be granted, courts consider, whether there was sufficient evidence at the initial trial, where there was an error on the part of the judge, and the penalty of the crime (Chalmers & Leverick, 2011).In this case, Jerry Sandusky asked the judge to overturn his conviction and grant him a new trial because his lawyer lacked sufficient time to prepare and the statute of limitations for some charges had expired. The law on limitations provides that a claim can no longer be filed once the time specified in the statute of limitations lapses and courts have no jurisdiction when it lapses. Moreover, he submitted that there was insufficient evidence, improper use of hearsay testimony and erroneous rulings from the bench. He added that the charges brought against him were vague and that the jurors were sequestered. These factors are relevant to the question of whether Jerry should be granted a retrial and his application will likely be granted. However, Jerry’s argument that he should be granted a retrial because his lawyer did not have enough time to prepare and that the rapid pace of his case violates his right to due process of law do not suffice. As mentioned earlier, the six amendment grants defendants the right to a speedy trial unless the prosecution can show good cause for a delay, or if the accused waives this right. Violation of the right to a speedy trial may lead to the sticking out of a conviction or a sentence and must be dismissed if the case has not reached trial.
Impact of Juries
Juries fulfil an important role in the trial process, they are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether an accused is guilty or not based on the facts of a case. In reaching their verdicts, they must be impartial and can only pass guilty verdicts when they are convinced that an accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
To this end, a juror may be excused from jury duty if they are unable or unwilling to make unbiased decisions against an accused. However, it can be difficult for a juror to practice impartiality when they have strong feelings or prior opinions. In this case, John, a married, law-abiding father of two serving as a juror in a trial where a child was murdered, might have strong opinions against the accused since he has children. His prejudice might be drawn from his protective fatherly instinct which will impact the trial and possibly lead to the conviction of the accused. The judge should, therefore, consider replacing John with another juror.
Response to a Peer’s Post
My peer is right to state that the judge will likely grant a retrial based on the grounds of insufficient evidence and the improper use of heresy and errors in the trial. Moreover, their argument that the accused is entitled to a fair trial is correct. Although they make a good case in Jerry’s case, my peer fails to address the second question on the impact that John’s demographics would have in the outcome of the case if he is allowed to sit in the jury.
Conclusion
Whether a retry should be granted or not depends on the circumstances of a case and can only be made where the interest of justice requires it. Another factor includes the legality of the initial trial. Additionally, jurors should be impartial in criminal cases and where they cannot be impartial, they should be removed from the jury in the interest of justice.
References
Chalmers, J., & Leverick, F. (2011). When Should a Retrial be Permitted After a Conviction is Quashed on Appeal? The Modern Law Review, 74(5), 721-749. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/41302776
Powell, L. (1965). The Right to a Fair Trial. American Bar Association Journal, 51(6), 534-538. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/25723242.