Ratings. Guidance. The Right Lawyer.
CA criminal procedure, defendant's rights and grounds for appeal criminal jury trial
Los Angeles, CA
Viewed 662 times.
Posted about 1 year ago in Appeals
Flag as objectionable
Grounds for appeal-jury:
Question: Are there grounds for appeal when the jury selected in a California criminal trial was selected without regard for the defendant and just for the connivance of the Court and both the Defense and Prosecution attorneys? The jury panel was original composed of at least 92 persons. The judge demised the majority of the potential jurors before challenging started, for typical reasons: i.e. vacations, too far to drive, work hardships; this left a limited jury pool. The challenges began, and before all challenges were exhausted, the court noticed that there were no more potential jurors left to call, the Judge called a sidebar. After the sidebar, the judge and the two attorneys, although there were challenges available still for both sides, proceeded to accept the jury as is. The jury was immediately, sworn in, with no consultation with defendant. The defendant was found guilty.
Case: First time DUI and DWI misdemeanor offense tried before a Federal Judge on the last legal day to try case or the People would have had to drop the case. The defendant was found guilty.
Additional information
I probably should have said this: the reason this case was in front of a Federal Judge was becuase it was the last day upon which the State had to start the case or drop it and dismiss it. [If the defendant waives the right to a speedy trial (enters a time waiver or "waives time") or requests/consents to the case being set beyond the statutory periods, the Court must begin the trial within ten days of the day the case is set or continued for trial. ] Ten day rule, or such, anyway, there was no available Courtroom at the originally assigned Courthouse, so the trial was moved some 27 miles away and proceeded that day in front of a Federal Judge in his Court, as his was the only available Court in the Court System. Answers (3)
John M. Kaman
This attorney is licensed in California.
Posted about 1 year ago.
Flag as objectionable
Hardship exemptions are given by the judge. He or she also decides challenges for cause. Attorneys do the peremptories without necessarily consulting their client. This is a tactical area where the attorney should not be saddled with an amateur's view of who would or would not be a good juror. In your case apparently if the attorneys had not accepted the jury as constituted anew panel would have had to be summoned with possible delays and inconvenience to the jury already seated. Frankly if the judge and attorneys had already run through a 92 person panel, it was indeed time to move on. Unless you can point to specific misconduct, you have no ground to appeal.
Alec Scott Rose
This attorney is licensed in California.
Posted about 1 year ago.
Flag as objectionable
As an accused person represented by counsel, you have the right to decide whether or not to go to jury trial. At that trial, your attorney and the opposing attorney are entitled to exercise peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. The court may excuse jurors who will suffer excessive hardship, or who are unable to be fair to both sides. beyond that, any agreement to accept or reject jurors is up to your lawyer's strategy. If the court had exhausted the available juror supply, more jurors would have been called the next day to fill the panel and continue selection. Most cases in California go to trial on or near the last day.
Every convicted person is entitled to file an appeal, and to appointment of counsel on appeal if you cannot afford an attorney. You should promptly file notice of appeal if your trial counsel has not done so. 
Brian C Andritch
This attorney is licensed in California.
Posted 8 months ago.
Flag as objectionable
The other attorneys already answered the jury question, but I am curious about another issue. I assume this trial was in Federal Court because you said it was a Federal Judge. If so, I don't understand why there was a jury at all. In Federal Court there is no right to a jury unless the maximum possible punishment is greater than six months. The punishment for a DUI is six months. Trials in Federal Court for DUI are court trials. Were there other charges?
Brian Andritch www.jeffhammerschmidt.com/Bio/BrianAndritch.asp |
