Deck 6: Juries, Jurors, and the Death Penalty

Question 1

The United States Constitution gives U.S citizens the right to a jury. What Amendment specifies a right to a "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury"?

A) 8^th Amendment
B) 14^th Amendment
C) 6^th Amendment
D) None of the above

Answer 1

C

Question 2

In which case did the Supreme Court reinforce that the jury tradition is an "indispensable part of our criminal justice system"?

A) Ring v. Arizona
B) Apprendi v. New Jersey
C) Spaziano v. Florida
D) Walton v. Arizona

Answer 2

B

Question 3

Allowing judges to override a jury and impose harsher punishment (for instance, death rather than a life sentence) would violate the Court's decision in what case?

A) Miranda v. Arizona
B) Apprendi v. New Jersey
C) Furman v. Georgia
D) Ring v. Arizona

Answer 3

D

Question 4

In which case did the Supreme Court strengthen the full authority of a judge?

A) Ring v. Arizona
B) Teague v. Lane
C) Spaziano v. Florida
D) Walton v. Arizona

Question 5

In which case did the Court decide that it is unconstitutional for judges to make determinations of aggravating factors?

A) Duncan v. Louisiana
B) Schriro v. Summerlin
C) Apprendi v. New Jersey
D) Teague v. Lane

Question 6

Who is called upon to consider extralegal factors submitted as aggravating and mitigating circumstances?

A) Judges
B) Justices
C) Juries
D) All of the above

Question 7

According to the text, the ______ phase requires more guidance where much attention
Has revolved around the critical issue of future dangerousness.

A) Guilt
B) Sentencing
C) Penalty
D) None of the above

Question 8

The first case following the reinstatement of the death penalty to test the requirements of "heightened standards of reliability" was:

A) Hopper v. Evans
B) Apprendi v. New Jersey
C) Lockhart v. McCree
D) Beck v. Alabama

Question 9

According to the text, special attention should be given by the jury to _________ in order to ensure the adequate understanding of the factors that determine whether the defendant should live or die.

A) Future dangerousness
B) Dangerous person
C) Sentencing phase
D) None of the above

Question 10

What are the two aspects of future dangerousness in capital trials?

A) The defendant's predisposition toward crime and the likelihood that the defendant will flee the country
B) The likelihood that the defendant will be a physical threat and the defendant's predisposition toward unemployment
C) The defendant's predisposition toward violence and the likelihood that the defendant will be a physical threat
D) All of the above

Question 11

In what case did the Court say that what is essential is that the jury has all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it will determine.

A) Jurek v. Texas
B) Simmons v. South Carolina
C) Shafer v. South Carolina
D) All of the above

Question 12

What state consistently refused to allow capital juries to be instructed about parole ineligibility when a prosecutor argued that they would be a future danger?

A) Texas
B) Virginia
C) South Carolina
D) North Carolina

Question 13

In Kelly v. South Carolina, the Court said:

A) In order for future dangerousness to be "at issue," it does not have to be explicitly argued by the prosecution
B) In order for the jury to have parole ineligibility, the prosecution had to argue explicitly for future dangerousness
C) In order to argue for future dangerousness, the judge must sign a warrant
D) None of the above

Question 14

According to the text, the jury has a selection process that requires the ability to determine

A) Dispassionately
B) Objectively
C) The appropriate sentence
D) All of the above

Question 15

A judge and an attorney can remove a prospective juror:

A) Only "for cause"
B) For no explanation or specific reason
C) Both a and b
D) Only a bailiff can remove a prospective juror from the panel.

Question 16

Texas is one of the states that has historically placed sole discretion for capital sentencing in the trial judge's hands

Question 17

The bifurcated trial is a separated into two phases: the guilt phase and the sentencing phase.

Question 18

The Supreme Court has allowed states to make their own determination as to how a judge and the jury impose the sentence of capital trials.

Question 19

In Kelly v. South Carolina (2002), the Court said that in order for future dangerousness to be "at issue," it does not necessarily have to be explicitly argued by the prosecution.

Question 20

In Walton v. Arizona, the Supreme Court further strengthened the trial judge's authority to determine the sentence in capital cases by upholding Arizona's statute in which judges have full authority over the sentencing of capital defendants.

Question 21

In the penalty phase, the Court has primarily considered instructions guiding the jury's consideration of lesser included (noncapital) offenses.

Question 22

The aspect of future dangerousness is determined by forensic psychologists and mental health professionals.

Question 23

Juries decide both a defendant's guilt and a defendant's punishment.

Question 24

The 6th Amendment specifies the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.

Question 25

In Simmons v. South Carolina, the defense was allowed to have a jury instructed about parole ineligibility when the prosecution argued future dangerousness.

Question 26

Those expressing any opposition to the death penalty are excluded "for cause"; it is known as "death qualification."

Question 27

A judge or an attorney can remove a prospective juror.

Question 28

In Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968), the Supreme Court challenged the death qualification process on two grounds: it biased the jury toward a guilty verdict, and it biased jury toward a death sentence.

Question 29

According to the text, a juror should be excluded if it is determined that his or her views would bias his or her ability to impose the death penalty.

Question 30

In the case known as "reverse-Witherspoon" the Court held that prospective jurors who would automatically vote for the death penalty upon conviction of the defendant, regardless of the specific circumstances of the case, can be excluded from the jury for cause.