POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 8Current LectureJuries: Did it matter that there are these changes in rules? Does it matter that some states don’t require unanimous votes in juries?Research by Psychologists1. Hans Zeisel- collective wisdom of 6 less than 122. Sharlan Nemeth- changes and their influence on small group decision making3. Important role of dissent- Problematic nature of non-unanimous decision-makingThese studies show that where there is non-unanimity, there is a higher rate of conviction; thereare fewer hung juries, and most importantly, non-unanimity changes the process of deliberation.Jury Consultants1. Corporate vs. Non profit- different kinds of jury consultants; some people call themselves trial consultants in which they do this for a living. 2. Basic findings; racial differences and gender differences; more severe of punishments in same race; upper incomes and highly educated convicts higher; republicans and conservatives convicts higher; books written about how the appearance of the defendants- more attractive people are acquitted; there has been research on profiles that people who fit the authoritarian profile (moralistic, punitive) tend to favor the deathpenalty. 3. Death qualified juries- people who are in favor of the death penalty are more likely to convict; could lawyers ask potential juries what their view was on the death penalty? Judges won’t allow lawyers to ask juries about that. Would that make the jury prosecution prone? a. Lockhard v. McGree (1986) b. Death qualification is not constitutionally forbidden; only if their views on the death penalty would make them impartial about the punishment or would automatically vote against capital punishments. The court emphasized that the proper interpretation of Wirld Witherspoon (?) does not mean excluding all jurors against the death penalty, but only those people that could not under any circumstance impose the death penalty. 4. Questionable techniques- depends how one asks the questionsBecause we have a dual court system, which is a reflection of federalism, lawyers have to pick in which system they are going to file their cases. If there is an issue of state law, the StateSupreme Court has the last word on the meaning of state law. If the State Supreme Court is using an independence decision, it shields that from review from the US Supreme Court. Sometimes there are cases that involve state and federal issues, even if the state misinterprets the federal law issue, if there is a separate basis for the decision, the US Supreme Court won’t take it. This is from the Pruyard case, which involved the students circulating the petition in the mall, and the shopping owner said they couldn’t do that. The students went to court but the state courts, based on the California constitution, said they had free speech rights and the United States Supreme Court endorsed the idea that the basis of the decision was the CaliforniaConstitution so thus they wouldn’t review it. New ideas of federalism were seen in this decision.Justice William Brennan is famous for advocating this new judicial federalism, the use of the California Constitution to protect rights. Hands Linda from Oregon Supreme CourtFrank Newman also supports this. Another example of independence state grounds: cases that involve restrictive zoningCity of Bell Terre v. Boraas (1974)- where independence state grounds comes into place; community in New York with 200 families that wanted to maintain community character; had a law that didn’t involve groups of people of 3 or more unrelated by blood or marriage to share a household, no deliveries. The US Supreme Court said that the policy had a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, used the lowest standard of review and didn’t think rights were violated. People who challenged it said it violated equal protections, rights to travel, rights to privacy, rights to freedom of association. The US Supreme Court said no and this was a reasonable, non-arbitrary policy.Then states get the same challenge, California had a caseSanta Barbara v. Adamson- restrictive zoning law that violated rights of privacy and freedom of association under the state constitution; the California Supreme Court struck down the restrictive law. At least two State Supreme Courts (California and New Jersey) struck down the same law that the United States Supreme Court used in 1974. These states said it violated their state constitution. Bowers v. Hardwick- Supreme Court extended right to privacy to everyone until it came to same sex privacy, under the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court overturned it later. In 1986, the United States Supreme Court said that the right to privacy didn’t extend to same sex couples. State Supreme Courts decided that the right to privacy under the state did require the right to privacy be extended to same sex couplesKentucky v. Wasson- Kentucky Supreme Court used Kentucky Constitution to say that same sex couples had the right to privacy and equal protectionThis is a reflection of the dual court systems. Funding for school districts: case in CaliforniaSerrano vs. Priests (1971): Mr. Serrano had a daughter in Baldwin Park School District. That district didn’t have much income, Mr. Serrano was concerned that his daughter would have an inferior education than other schools that had more income. He filed a law suit in California Supreme Court and the court ruled that education was a fundamental interest and the disparities in funding from one school to another violated equal protection under the state constitution. In 1973, similar case reaches Supreme Court of US. San Antonio’s School District v. Rodriguez: the US Supreme Court said that this didn’t violate equal protection under the US Constitution inTexas as different funding from school to school variesThat is another example of state grounds vs. US groundsIn 1982, California voters passed Prop 115, this included bill of rights, that California courts can only provide rights to defendants that are allowed in US Constitution but can’t provide more constitution rights to defendants. Raymond v. Numegan: California Supreme Court didn’t like the fact that voters were saying state constitution couldn’t be used; Said its improper for voters to limit how the California Supreme Court limits California Constitution. Federal constitution provides the floor, state constitution provides the ceilingNo state can provide fewer rights than