Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Whatever happened to Henry Simons? (fp)

Wow -- that's some very scary poll results (kw)

The scarlet ankle bracelet. (fp)

Every good article should have one idea. (fp)

Family values in market turnover culture. (fp)

Banks really create value: probably $58 billion in overdraft fees & credit card penalties in 2009. (fp)

A Citizens United dream: Exxon could have deployed 10% of its 2008 profits to outspend every presidential and senatorial candidate that year. (fp)

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets promises to adopt your pet if you are raptured. (fp)

Habermas doesn't tweet, but does interview well. (fp)

Lessig on Google, copyright, orphans, and the future of access to information. (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Kristina on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • PrometheeFeu on The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rewards

    • PoNyman on Very scary poll results

    • Civ Pro King on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • ParatrooperJJ on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • Lotta on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Alan on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Colin Crowe on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Glomarization on Links and short thoughts on Amazonfail

    • Vinca on Book Review: Divergent Opinions: Why Community Matters — A Review of Sunstein’s Going to Extremes

    • A.J. Sutter on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

    • Keri Brooks on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Illinois on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Ken Rhodes on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Ken Rhodes on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

  •  

    Site Meter

Criminal Background Checks Of Jurors

posted by Dan Filler

Perhaps it’s necessary, but the decision of Illinois federal court officials to conduct criminal background checks on prospective jurors in selected cases strikes me as troubling. I imagine that both prosecutors and – where feasible – defense lawyers sometimes run criminal record checks on jurors. But once the court system adopts this as a normal part of jury selection – and people learn about it – i worry that it will begin to corrode the jury process. If coming to court means that these records will be dredged up, it seems possible that many ex-offenders (be they drunk drivers or drug dealers) will just stay home. It saves potential embarrassment. And it avoids a pointless trip: these individuals might assume they won’t be selected.

Once a court goes down this path, what is the logical end? There are many factors that may play into an individual’s biases – marital status, bankruptcy history, job expeience, political affiliation, and the like. Just as some jurors will lie about their criminal record, others may choose to lie about these sensitive matters. Should courts engage in the broader background checks that are now available, simply to give interested lawyers additional data about their venire? In a sense, it would put urban lawyers on the same footing as their rural counterparts. Any good small-town lawyer will know, or will bring along someone likely to know, the backgrounds of many potential jurors. But urbanites value privacy, and any policy that tends to undermine that – from criminal background checks, to checks of voting records, to a quick search on ChoicePoint – has the potential to scare off jurors.

I worry about the race effects of this policy. We know that African-Americans are disproportionately represented among those convicted of crimes in America. Relatedly, they are also disproportionately represented among criminal defendants. The decision to engage in widespread criminal background checks on members of the a jury venire may have a disparate impact on African-American jurors. Worse, it could further undermine the actual – and perceived – fairness of the justice system itself.


 December 12, 2006 at 12:06 am   Posted in: Criminal Law   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (5)

  1. Maryland Conservatarian - December 12, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    perhaps our experiences are a little different but here in Baltimore, people don’t ignore jury summons because they think they WON’T get picked – I belive you get the word out that prior convictions could keep you off a jury and people will be bringing their rap sheets to jury duty just to make sure the court has the whole record; people will be asking if speeding tickets count and jaywalking on the way to court for as long as it takes to get caught.

    left unsaid is where you would draw the line. what questions should be permitted and what shouldn’t. As a Crim Defense lawyer, I probably wouldn’t object to somebody just because they have a record but I certainly understand the reluctance of the state…and further the general populace if convicted persons are passing judgment on others.

  2. LM - December 12, 2006 at 4:30 pm

    This is a purely rhetorical question, but I have to wonder: What do we consider to be an “impartial jury”?

    Additionally, I find it disconcerting that America now has about 13 million ex-felons. If every state were to adopt Illinois’ policy, then 7% of the adult population would be ineligible to serve on a jury.

    This policy appears to be just one more addition to a profusion of roadblocks that ex-offenders face in attempting to re-enter society (in the sense that the privilege — if we can call it that — of serving on a jury is deprived of ex-offenders, thereby creating an “us versus them” dichotomy).

    Ex-offenders have served their time, so why do we continue to punish, even after they are released from prison?

  3. Andrew - December 12, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    I don’t know that this would provide that much more of a disincentive for ex-cons to show up for jury service. First, I wonder how widely known it is that these checks are not already performed, or that one’s criminal history is not generally known within a courthouse, that there isn’t some giant database connecting all your information already.

    Second, isn’t one’s criminal history a routine question in voir dire? It would seem to me, as someone who has never served on a jury, but who has read a fair number of judicial opinions involving voir dire, that you have better-than-even chances of that coming up at some point anyway. What difference, then, would a background check make, except for those who might lie about their criminal past?

  4. Sorry - December 12, 2006 at 10:44 pm

    The idea is to discourage all but rich people – those who have nothing to lose – from serving.

    Just like extremely low salaries for many public service jobs make it impossible for anybody but the well to do to consider taking them. They don’t pay enough to live on.

    There are subtle trends like this all through society, and they are disturbing.

  5. LM - December 13, 2006 at 7:21 am

    “The idea is to discourage all but rich people – those who have nothing to lose – from serving.”

    I’m not so sure about that. If I make $100 per hour as an attorney, but am only compensated $20/hour as a juror (more or less, depending on where you live), I have every (economic) incentive NOT to serve on a jury.

    I think the rationale behind the policy is that persons with a criminal record might lie about their background during voir dire. The background check serves to ensure that attorneys know whether the juror was honest about his record. Honesty, after all, is a virtue, and I think we’d all prefer to have honest jurors deciding our fate, rather than dishonest ones. (Whether that actually happens is up for debate.)

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Adam Benforado
Mark Edwards
Michelle Harner
Kristin Johnson
Jeffrey Kahn
Alex Kreit
Viva Moffat
Adam Steinman










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress