Lamb v. Alabama Shows Importance of Jurors in Los Angeles Criminal Case
As a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer will tell you, jury selection may be the most important facet of a criminal case. Obviously, the evidence is critical, but who is weighing the evidence also takes on an important role.
The recent case of Lamb v. Alabama shows just how critical not only who is selected for jury is, but also what is said to them and how a judge and prosecutor interact with them.

Whether a case of burglary in Los Angeles or Southern California murder, every defendant deserves and is entitled to a fair trial.
This goes beyond just making sure the prosecutor and judge follow all the rules during the trial and that no unnecessary evidence is admitted or witnesses don't say something that count taint the jury. This also means allowing every juror a right to be able to participate.
Courts have ruled that jurors can't be dismissed because of race alone, but there are many factors that must be considered when picking a jury. Asking them pointed questions that may reveal their feelings about the criminal justice system, the particular charge or their opinions about police all help to ensure a jury is a fair one.
In this case, a man faced four charges -- first-degree rape, first-degree sexual abuse, incest and second-degree sexual assault. When jurors returned after deliberating, the jury foreman announced guilty verdicts on the first three charges, and not-guilty on count four, the second-degree sexual assault charge.
When the jury was polled -- when judges ask each juror if they agree with the verdict that was announced by the foreman -- it appears they agreed. But after the jury had been let go from its service, the judge noticed that the verdict form marked the first-degree sexual abuse charge as "not guilty," which was different than the "guilty" announced in court by the foreman.
The judge located seven of the 12 jurors and had them come back to court to clarify what their verdict meant. After discussion -- with five members not present -- they said they meant the verdict to be not guilty for count four, but guilty for the other three counts. The jury foreman then was instructed to change the verdict form.
On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that this amounted to double jeopardy and couldn't be done. It is surprising that a judge would allow something as critical as a verdict in a major sex case be handled so sloppily. Obviously, there were errors made by the jury, but allowing changes to be made after they've been discharged and with only a portion of them available is not right. Thankfully, it was sorted out.
Not only must a defendant have jurors who are open-minded, but those who are competent and able to look at the facts and decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant with an open mind. Educated jurors are important because they may think rationally rather than based on the hype of a witness.
Continue reading "Lamb v. Alabama Shows Importance of Jurors in Los Angeles Criminal Case" »


