Under the Sixth Amendment the defendant in a criminal case has a constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.
In view of the Sixth Amendment, the defendant in a criminal trial enjoys the right to a jury pool that has members from a wide cross section of the society. Out of and from the jury pool (also known as the ‘venire’), a panel of jurors is chosen to hear the case through a selection process called ‘voir dire’.
In ‘voir dire’ the presiding judge, the prosecution and the defense attorneys call upon the members of the jury pool to answer a variety of questions to test their impartiality. However, the jurors who are eventually selected for the trial need not be from a cross section of the society, unlike the jury pool, but must continue to be impartial throughout the proceedings. Even a single biased juror on the panel is not permitted under the Sixth Amendment.
A juror must avoid exposure to inputs or feedbacks that might affect his impartiality, before or during trial, from external or extraneous sources concerning the defendant or the proceedings, such as newspaper, television or radio coverage or even friends, acquaintances and family members. Such exposure raises a presumption of prejudice to the defendant. The burden will be on the concerned jury to upset the presumption by leading persuasive evidence that the juror can still deliver fair impartial verdict. Failure to rebut this presumption will lead to reversal of the conviction.
When racial bias could affect the outcome of the proceedings, at the request of the defendant the trial judge must enquire into the possible racial prejudice of any member of the jury.
Jurors can commence deliberations only after witness action is over, attorneys have completed their closing arguments and judge has read over the instructions. The object is not to permit premature deliberations.
Had premature deliberations been permitted immediately after the prosecution had concluded its case in chief but before the defense began its presentation, then the prosecution would have got an undue advantage since many jurors would move into the final deliberations with a pro prosecution mindset. Federal Courts have held that once a juror has expressed his initial view, he is likely to try to hold on to the preliminary opinion and look for evidence to rationalize the same.
