Jury Nullification

Tom Robinson v. Maycomb Ct

In 1935, Tom Robinson, an African-American man, was tried and convicted of assault and rape. The charge of assault and rape by an African American brought a sentencing of death.

The onset of the trial, the selection of trial jurors was based on the voting roles of the town. During the 1930's blacks held no active voice nor did they have any representation. The juror consisted of an all white male jury. There was no voir dire presented to the possible jurors. Therefore no peremptory challenges provided by either judge, defense counsel or prosecutor.

There was no physical evidence provided to the jury against Robinson. The conviction was based on the testimony of the alleged victim and her father. The jury without any burden of proof convicted the defendant and the judge upheld the verdict.

Did Robinson get the benefit of the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial as provided by Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968)?

In Duncan, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases was "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," and that the states were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide such trials. As with Robinson, although he did receive a jury trial it was an impartial jury trial.

He had no cross section of the population of his community due to the racism that was plaguing the county. African-Americans were not allowed to sit on the juror pool. The socialization of blacks and whites did not exist.

Therefore, no voir dire was ever presented and the removal of any tainted jurors was impossible. This indicate the bias Robinson received the right to a jury trial based on Duncan v. Louisiana but was denied an impartial jury. The denial of a trial by an impartial jury also violates the defendant's due-process rights. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords criminal defendants seven discrete personal liberties: (1) the right to a speedy trial; (2) the right to a public trial; (3) the right to an impartial jury; (4) the right to be informed of pending charges; (5) the right to confront and to cross-examine adverse witnesses; (6) the right to compel favorable witnesses to testify at trial through the subpoena power of the judiciary; and (7) the right to legal counsel.

In conclusion, the right to an impartial jury was inequitably adverted. The jury was composed of only white males.

Did Tom Robinson get the benefit of the selection of a fair jury as provided by the 6th and 14th Amendments as outlined in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986).

Robinson did not get the benefit of a fair jury as provided by the 6th and 14th Amendment outlined in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986). In Batson, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike four people from the venir based on their race. This was not the case in Robinson case; the peremptory challenged was never used. The court never challenged any racial discrimination of the jurors because it was unheard of at the time. Although the court was aware of the bias and prejudice tainted all the members of the jury there was nothing that could be done.

Maycomb County's black population was not allowed to vote hold any type of office nor allowed to serve on a jury.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The laws of the state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. However, this did not apply to Robinson. He was denied to be treated equally.

By denying blacks participation in jury service on account of their race, the State also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror. Moreover, selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of the system of justice. The