In This Issue
 Should A Jury Have More To Say?
Is It True Or False...
... that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience? "True," you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?
In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.
But Judges Rarely "Fully Inform" Jurors Of Their Rights...
... especially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right, starting with anyone who also admits having qualms with any specific law.
It was normal procedure in the early days of our country to inform juries of their right to judge the law and the defendant. And if the judge didn't tell them, the defense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders understood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.
If Jurors Were Supposed To Judge "Only The Facts"...
... their job could be done by computer. It is precisely because people have feelings, opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend upon jurors, not upon machines, to judge court cases.
With the legislative passage of mandatory minimum terms, which deprive the judiciary of its traditional discretion in fashioning a "just sentence", the legislature has unwittingly involved jurors in the sentencing aspect of the trial. With the imposition of a mandatory sentence, the jury effectively sets the sentence with its guilty verdict. The remedy from this improper intrusion on the roles of jury and judge is to inform the jury of the statutory consequences of their verdict. An incomplete instruction, which avoids the jury's full consideration of the law and its mandated consequences, is a constitutional violation.
Attorney Timothy C. Moynahan invites you to a lively Panel Discussion, featuring:
A Quinnipiac University School of Law Forum
Co-Sponsored by the Connecticut Bar Foundation
and the Quinnipiac Law School Criminal Law Society
and with assistance from the Student Bar Association
Friday, January 28, 2011
2:30PM-5:30PM (reception to follow)
Quinnipiac University School of Law - Grand Courtroom
275 Mt. Carmel Ave., Hamden, CT
PROGRAM
Panel #1
Individualized Jury Voir Dire: Do We Question Too Much?
Connecticut stands alone among its sister states to the extent that it requires and allows for individualized voir dire of prospective members of civil and criminal trial juries. Advocates defend the Connecticut approach on the ground that it ensures selection of fair and impartial jurors. Critics contend that it wastes resources and discourages parties from resorting to jury trials.
Moderator
- Michael P. Lawlor, Undersecretary for Criminal Justice Policy, Connecticut Office of Policy and Management
Panelists
- Kevin T. Kane, Chief State's Attorney of Connecticut
- Linda K. Lager, Chief Administrative Judge (Civil), Connecticut Superior Court
- Norman Pattis, The Pattis Law Firm
- Carl J. Schuman, Judge, Connecticut Superior Court
- Richard A. Silver, Silver, Golub & Teitell LLP
Panel #2
Juries and Sentencing: Should Juries Have More Say?
Connecticut criminal trial juries are generally confined to deciding what facts the prosecution has proved to establish a defendant's guilt of a crime. Outside the death penalty context, jurors don't get to decide or recommend what the sentence should be or even to learn what sentencing consequences a defendant might face (such as a mandatory minimum prison term). Advocates maintain that juries should just decide "the facts," and judges are better suited to decide what sentence a defendant should receive. Critics contend that juries are emasculated from evaluating and assessing a defendant's true culpability.
Moderator
- Sarah French Russell, Assistant Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law
Panelists
- Leonard C. Boyle, Deputy Chief State's Attorney of Connecticut
- Robert J. Devlin, Jr., Chief Administrative Judge (Criminal), Connecticut Superior Court
- Timothy C. Moynahan, Moynahan & Minella
- Shelley R. Sadin, Zeldes, Needle & Cooper, PC
Closing Comments
- Linda Ross Meyer, Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law
Reception/Refreshments
"Juries and Justice" is open to the public and free of charge
Attorney Timothy C. Moynahan's Donation
Doubles Post University's Law Library
On January 11, 2011, Post University announced that prominent local attorney Timothy C. Moynahan has donated more than 2,000 law books to its library. The donation doubled Post's collection, making it the largest undergraduate legal studies library in the area.
Timothy C. Moynahan, of Moynahan and Minnella Attorneys at Law in Waterbury, is a member of the Post University MBA Advisory Board. When reorganizing his workspace last month, he reached out to the University to offer his collection.
The Post University law library has received a number of small donations, but none comparable to this addition, said Tracy Ralston, Post's Library Director. "On behalf of the library, I am thrilled to receive this invaluable donation from Attorney Moynahan's office, as it will greatly enhance Post's ability to meet the needs of our Legal Studies, Criminal Justice and Public Administration students."
The donation includes an extensive and up-to-date assortment of Statutes, Codes, Case Reports, Connecticut Regulations, Law Textbooks, and Lawyers' Practice Form books, said Peter Chepya, Esq., of the Post University Legal Studies Program. "You cannot rely on electronic research alone for legal studies because online and book-based legal research supplement each other," he said. "We make sure our students know how to use the law books as a primary resource, and now they have twice as many to use."
In recognition of his donation, Post will name the law section of the University library after Moynahan.
|
|
