We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
ANY (REASONABLE) DOUBT: EVALUATING A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE A HEARING-IMPAIRED JUROR FOR CAUSE.
- Authors
AVILLA, ELISABETH
- Abstract
Currently, Florida has no law governing how courts should handle a motion to strike a hearing-impaired juror for cause in a criminal case. Judges use only their discretion and have no legal precedent to guide balancing the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial with the potential juror's right not to be discriminated against for their hearing impairment. While there is no guiding law for Florida courts in criminal cases, there is law guiding Florida civil cases and other jurisdictions have evaluated this issue. This Note will propose that Florida courts adopt the "any doubt" standard over the "specific evidence" standard in evaluating a defendant's motion to strike a hearing-impaired juror for cause. The "any doubt" standard allows the trial court to grant the motion to strike so long as there is a reasonable doubt the hearing impairment will prevent the potential juror from fairly and effectively evaluating the evidence presented as the U.S. Constitution requires. This Note will defend the "any doubt" standard through a comparison to the evidentiary hearsay rule and argue that the "any doubt" standard will not result in the categorical ban of hearing-impaired jurors. The "any doubt" standard will fill a current hole in Florida law. It will also give trial courts the guidance to consider all relevant factors in balancing the defendant's rights to a fair trial and the potential juror's right not to be discriminated against for a hearing impairment.
- Subjects
FLORIDA; FAIR trial; JURORS; CRIMINAL courts; TRIAL courts; LEGAL precedent; CONSTITUTIONALISM
- Publication
Florida State University Law Review, 2019, Vol 47, Issue 1, p259
- ISSN
0096-3070
- Publication type
Article