- Is the court likely to grant the motion for a new trial? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the jury was exposed to extraneous, prejudicial information that was not part of the trial evidence.
A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury is violated when the jury is exposed to extraneous, prejudicial information not admitted into evidence. Information about a defendant's prior criminal record is highly prejudicial. Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) allows a juror to testify about whether any 'extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention.' The introduction of this outside information is a sufficient basis for granting a new trial.
- What is the judge's most appropriate next step? Select one.
Answer: Instruct the remaining 11 jurors to continue deliberating and reach a verdict.
A juror's refusal to deliberate or to apply the law as instructed constitutes good cause for dismissal. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(b), if a juror is excused for good cause after deliberations have begun, the court has the discretion to permit the remaining 11 jurors to return a verdict. A mistrial is not required, and alternate jurors are typically dismissed before deliberations begin.
- How should the judge rule on the defense motion for a mistrial? Select one.
Answer: Deny the motion, because federal rules permit the court to proceed with 11 jurors if a juror is excused for good cause.
This question tests your knowledge of federal jury requirements during criminal trials, specifically what happens when a juror becomes unavailable mid-trial.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(b), a federal criminal trial may continue with fewer than 12 jurors if a juror is dismissed for good cause during trial, provided the number doesn't fall below 6 jurors. The court has discretion to proceed as long as the defendant's constitutional rights are protected. Here, a medical emergency clearly constitutes good cause, and 11 jurors exceeds the minimum threshold.
Answer A is incorrect because while defendants generally have a right to a 12-person jury at the start of trial, this right isn't absolute when jurors are excused for good cause during proceedings. The Constitution doesn't mandate 12 jurors specifically—it requires an impartial jury.
Answer B overstates the defendant's control. While defendant consent is one way to proceed with fewer jurors, it's not required when the reduction is due to good cause excusal. The court can proceed without explicit consent.
Answer C misunderstands the legal framework. The judge doesn't need to give special jury instructions about the absent juror's impact on deliberations. With 11 jurors, unanimity is still required among those remaining, and standard jury instructions suffice.
Answer D correctly states the rule: federal courts can proceed with 11 jurors when one is excused for good cause, which includes medical emergencies.
Study tip: Remember that federal criminal jury rules prioritize trial efficiency while protecting defendant rights. Focus on the minimum juror threshold (6) and the "good cause" standard for mid-trial dismissals.
- How should the judge rule on this requested instruction? Select one.
Answer: Deny the request, because giving such an instruction would encourage the jury to disregard the law.
This question tests your understanding of jury nullification and the limits of proper jury instructions in criminal law. Jury nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant despite evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, typically because they believe the law is unjust or its application would be unfair.
While juries technically have the power to nullify through their verdict, courts consistently refuse to inform juries about this power. The correct answer is A because instructing juries about nullification would indeed encourage them to disregard established law. Courts have a fundamental duty to uphold the rule of law, and explicitly telling jurors they can ignore legal requirements would undermine the entire judicial system. Judges must instruct juries to apply the law as written, not to act as freelance legislators.
Answer B is incorrect because while juries may have the practical power of nullification, accurately describing this power doesn't make the instruction proper or legally permissible. Answer C fails because although juries may serve as the community's conscience, this doesn't give them license to ignore their sworn duty to follow the law as instructed. Answer D creates a false distinction—jury nullification isn't formally "permitted" in any category of cases, whether misdemeanors or felonies.
Remember this key principle for bar exam questions about jury instructions: judges must always direct juries to follow the law, never to disregard it. Any instruction that explicitly encourages lawlessness, even for sympathetic reasons, will be improper regardless of the underlying equities.
- Did the judge's factual finding violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial? Select one.
Answer: No, because the decision to impose consecutive sentences is a traditional sentencing function left to the judge.
This question tests your understanding of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right in sentencing, specifically the distinction between judicial sentencing discretion and factual findings that increase punishment beyond statutory limits.
The correct answer is A. When judges have traditionally exercised discretion in choosing between concurrent and consecutive sentences, this remains a core judicial sentencing function even when the legislature adds procedural requirements. Here, the state historically gave judges discretion over consecutive sentencing, and the new law simply added a factual prerequisite ("deliberate cruelty") that judges must find before exercising that same discretionary power. Since each individual sentence remained within the statutory maximum for that count, no Sixth Amendment violation occurred.
Answer B is incorrect because exceeding the punishment for a single count doesn't automatically trigger jury trial rights—what matters is whether each individual sentence exceeds its statutory maximum. Answer C misapplies the Apprendi doctrine, which requires jury findings only when facts increase punishment beyond the statutory maximum for each individual offense, not when they guide traditional sentencing discretion. Answer D captures part of the analysis (individual sentences within statutory maximums) but misses the key point that this involves traditional judicial sentencing authority.
Remember this distinction: Apprendi requires jury findings for facts that increase sentences beyond statutory maximums, but judges retain their traditional discretion in sentencing decisions, even when legislatures add procedural requirements to guide that discretion. Focus on whether the new requirement fundamentally changes the nature of judicial authority or merely provides structure to existing discretion.
- Did the defendant's sentence violate his Sixth Amendment rights? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the fact that a death resulted increased the statutory maximum sentence and must be found by a jury.
Under Apprendi v. New Jersey, any fact, other than the fact of a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the jury's verdict only authorized a sentence up to 20 years. The judge's finding that a death resulted increased the statutory maximum to life. Because this fact was found by the judge by a preponderance of the evidence instead of by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
- Is the court likely to grant the motion for a jury trial? Select one.
Answer: No, because the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial has not been held to apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings.
The Supreme Court held in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania that the Sixth Amendment's right to a trial by jury does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings. The Court reasoned that requiring jury trials would inject an adversarial nature into the proceedings that would undermine the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system. Therefore, the juvenile does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial.
- On appeal, the defendant argues that the judge's factual finding regarding sophisticated means violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Is this argument likely to succeed? Select one.
Answer: No, because the judge's finding did not increase the statutory maximum sentence authorized by the jury's verdict.
The rule from Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny is that any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases the statutory maximum sentence must be found by a jury. This rule does not apply to facts that only trigger a mandatory minimum sentence, so long as the final sentence is within the original statutory maximum. Here, the jury's verdict authorized a sentence up to 10 years. The judge's finding only affected the sentencing floor, not the ceiling, and the 8-year sentence was within that maximum. Thus, there was no Sixth Amendment violation.
- Is the court required to grant the defendant's motion for a bench trial? Select one.
Answer: No, because the government must consent to the defendant's waiver of a jury trial.
A defendant does not have an absolute right to a bench trial. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), a defendant may waive a jury trial only with the consent of the government and the approval of the court. Because the prosecutor objected, the court cannot grant the motion for a bench trial.
- Should the judge grant the prosecutor's motion to strike the juror for cause? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the juror's views would prevent or substantially impair her from performing her duties at the sentencing phase.
When you encounter jury selection questions in capital cases, focus on the specific standard for striking jurors for cause: whether their views would "prevent or substantially impair" their ability to perform their duties according to law.
The correct answer is D because this juror explicitly stated she could never vote for a death sentence "no matter what." This creates substantial impairment of her ability to perform sentencing duties, as she's predetermined to reject the death penalty regardless of evidence or legal instructions. Under Wainwright v. Witt, this level of impairment justifies removal for cause.
Answer A misapplies the fair cross-section requirement. While the Sixth Amendment guarantees a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, this applies to the jury pool composition, not individual strikes for cause. Death penalty opponents aren't excluded as a class - only those whose views substantially impair their duties.
Answer B incorrectly suggests the analysis stops at the guilt phase. In capital cases, jurors must be able to perform duties in both phases. Even if this juror could be impartial about guilt, her inability to consider death sentences disqualifies her from serving in a bifurcated capital trial.
Answer C wrongly ties for-cause strikes to peremptory challenges. These are separate concepts - for-cause strikes have no numerical limit and don't depend on remaining peremptory challenges. If legal grounds exist for a for-cause strike, it should be granted regardless.
Study tip: In capital jury selection, the key phrase is "substantially impair." Jurors with mere reservations about the death penalty can serve, but those who cannot follow the law cannot.
- On appeal, what is the defendant's strongest argument that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated? Select one.
Answer: The aggregate maximum sentence he faced exceeded six months, entitling him to a jury trial.
The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to 'serious offenses,' defined as those for which the maximum authorized punishment exceeds six months' imprisonment. When a defendant is tried for multiple petty offenses in a single proceeding, the court must consider the aggregate potential sentence. Here, the defendant faced a maximum of nine months (four plus five). Because this aggregate exceeds six months, the right to a jury trial attaches. The denial of the defendant's request was therefore a constitutional violation.
- Is the defendant's argument on appeal likely to succeed? Select one.
Answer: No, because the Sixth Amendment permits state court juries to consist of as few as six members.
The Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment does not require a 12-person jury. A jury of six members is constitutionally permissible in state criminal trials. Therefore, the defendant's conviction by a unanimous six-person jury did not violate his constitutional rights.
- What is the defense attorney's strongest argument in support of the motion? Select one.
Answer: The method of selecting the jury pool systematically excludes a distinctive group in the community, violating the fair cross-section requirement.
The Sixth Amendment requires that the jury venire (the pool) be selected from a fair cross-section of the community. A defendant can show a violation by demonstrating that a distinctive group (Hispanics) is not fairly represented in the venire due to systematic exclusion resulting from the selection process (exclusive use of property tax records). This argument does not require proof of intentional discrimination, which would be needed for an Equal Protection claim.
- What is the defense attorney's best argument that the prosecutor's reason is a pretext for discrimination? Select one.
Answer: The prosecutor's failure to question the juror about the supposed concern suggests the reason is a post-hoc justification.
At the third step of a Batson analysis, the court must determine if the facially neutral reason given by the prosecutor is actually a pretext for discrimination. A key factor in this analysis is whether the prosecutor's actions are consistent with the stated reason. If the prosecutor was genuinely concerned about bias from living in the defendant's neighborhood, it is logical that the prosecutor would have questioned the juror on that topic. The failure to do so is strong circumstantial evidence that the reason is a pretext.
- On appeal, the defendant argues that the judge's imposition of consecutive sentences based on facts not found by the jury violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Is this argument correct? Select one.
Answer: No, because the sentence imposed for each individual count did not exceed the statutory maximum for that count.
The Supreme Court has held that the Apprendi rule, which requires a jury to find any fact that increases a statutory maximum, does not apply to the decision to impose consecutive sentences. The relevant statutory maximum for Sixth Amendment purposes is the maximum for each individual offense. As long as the sentence for each count (here, 20 years) is within the maximum authorized by the jury's verdict for that count, the judge has discretion to run the sentences consecutively based on judicial fact-finding.
- How should the judge evaluate the prosecutor's stated reason for this strike? Select one.
Answer: The judge should find the reason is a valid, gender-neutral explanation and proceed to the next step of the Batson analysis.
The second step of a Batson challenge requires the proponent of the strike to offer a neutral explanation. The explanation need not be persuasive or plausible, only facially neutral. A juror's employment status is a recognized gender-neutral reason. The court should accept this reason and proceed to the third step, where the defense has the burden of proving that the seemingly neutral reason is actually a pretext for discrimination.
- What is the most likely outcome of the defendant's appeal? Select one.
Answer: The conviction will be reversed, because the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury verdict for a conviction in a state criminal trial.
In Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. A 10-2 verdict is therefore unconstitutional. The conviction must be reversed.
- Is the defendant likely to succeed on appeal? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because closing an entire trial to the public is a violation of the right to a public trial, which is a structural error.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a public trial. While this right is not absolute, any closure must be narrowly tailored to an overriding interest after considering all reasonable alternatives. Closing an entire trial is almost never permissible. The violation of the right to a public trial is a 'structural error,' meaning the defendant does not need to show specific prejudice to obtain a reversal of his conviction.
- On appeal, is the trial court's ruling likely to be upheld? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because an offense that does not carry a penalty of imprisonment is presumptively a 'petty' offense.
The primary indicator of a 'serious' offense for Sixth Amendment purposes is whether the legislature has authorized a term of imprisonment exceeding six months. When no imprisonment is authorized, the offense is presumptively 'petty,' and there is no right to a jury trial. While a very large fine could theoretically overcome this presumption, a $50,000 fine against a corporation has not been held to be sufficiently serious to trigger the right. Therefore, the denial of a jury trial was proper.
- How should the judge rule on the motion? Select one.
Answer: Grant the motion, because the juror's close personal experience creates an unacceptable risk of implied bias.
A juror must be impartial. Even if a juror claims they can be fair, a challenge for cause should be granted where the juror's experiences or relationships create a significant risk of bias. The fact that the juror's brother, a police officer, was shot during a similar crime creates a strong potential for bias against the defendant that the juror's assurances cannot reliably overcome. This is often referred to as implied bias.
