Also known as: impartial juries · unbiased jury · impartial jurors
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A jury that decides a case without bias toward either party or preconceived opinions on the merits. Selection occurs through procedures that screen for neutrality. The panel bases its verdict solely on the evidence presented at trial.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Israel Irving faced arson charges in a small town where local media had saturated coverage of the warehouse fire for weeks. Prospective jurors admitted during voir dire that they had already formed opinions about his guilt from the reports. The court granted a change of venue to ensure the panel could decide the case solely on courtroom evidence.
Idris Ives stood trial for robbery. His attorney never investigated a venire member's prior business dealings with the victim and failed to strike the individual. That juror later influenced deliberations with personal knowledge outside the record, undermining the panel's neutrality.
Ismael Ibrahim was convicted of assault. The judge alone determined that the attack qualified as a hate crime and added five years to the sentence. The added fact was never presented to or found by the jury that decided guilt.
Isaac Irving, a Black defendant, faced trial in a county with a sizable Black population. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove every Black venire member without race-neutral explanations. The resulting all-white jury raised doubts about its ability to remain unbiased.
Iain Irons pleaded guilty to burglary. The sentencing judge found that the crime involved deliberate cruelty and imposed an exceptional sentence beyond the statutory maximum. The jury had never considered or found that aggravating fact.
Isla Ireland was convicted of fraud. After the verdict, evidence emerged that several jurors had used alcohol and drugs throughout the trial and could not follow the evidence or instructions. The court refused to consider affidavits describing the impairment.
Extensive prejudicial publicity that leaves most of the venire with fixed opinions of guilt can violate the right. A defendant must receive a meaningful opportunity to prove that a venue change is necessary to obtain an unbiased panel.
Supporting sources
A clear statement during deliberations showing that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the vote to convict is admissible despite Rule 606(b). The trial court decides whether the threshold is met after considering the content, timing, and reliability of the evidence.
…the Counsel Clause: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the…
…and the guarantee that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury," Amdt. 6.[^maj-3] Taken together, these rights indisputably entitle a criminal defendant to "a
…prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude members of the black race from the jury violated his right to trial by an impartial jury
…Amendment's command that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." We therefore hold that the Sixth Amendment requires that any fact, other than the fact of a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory…
…Ibid. If the above-referenced policy considerations seriously threaten the constitutional right to trial by a fair and impartial jury
Supporting sources
Any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
The Equal Protection Clause forbids prosecutors from using peremptory strikes to exclude venire members solely on the basis of race. A defendant may establish a prima facie case of discrimination and shift the burden to the state to offer race-neutral explanations.
Supporting sources
Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about matters occurring during deliberations, including substance abuse that occurred before or during trial when offered to impeach the verdict. External evidence of impairment may still be considered through non-juror sources.
Supporting sources