Supremes: Jury Selection Must Be Open to Public

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial means judges may not ordinarily close their courtrooms during jury selection.

Posted by mmike at 07:32 PM | 13 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Amazon.com Widgets

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

mmike

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2008/01/24
Visited 2010/03/19

Status: user

MORE STORIES

NRSC Subpoenaed In Ensign Probe (3 comments) ...

Poll: 70% of Current Vets OK Serving with Gays (30 comments) ...

Chamber Gearing Up To Spend Like Never Before On Midterms (3 comments) ...

'Far-Right' Texas Board Issues Textbook Standards (204 comments) ...

House Dems Ban No-Bid Contractor Earmarks (49 comments) ...

Sen. Corker 's hold Prevents FedEx Drivers From Unionizing (25 comments) ...

Virginia to Colleges: End Gay Protection (31 comments) ...

Obama Likes Four GOP Ideas For Health Care (32 comments) ...

House Ethics Panel Clears 7 on Earmarks (13 comments) ...

Climate change panel seeks outside review on reports (5 comments) ...

Senate Sitting on 290 House Bills (103 comments) ...

Toyota Claims Deal with US Regulators (31 comments) ...

Premiums Going Way Up In Six More States (5 comments) ...

GOP Blinks Senate confirms 27 nominees (9 comments) ...

Obama Considers Recess Appointments (59 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"In a separate, unsigned opinion, the court took on another procedure case from Georgia. It ruled that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to the accused of a "speedy and public trial" meant that the public must be allowed into the part of the trial where potential jurors are questioned. The court had already ruled that the First Amendment meant such procedures should be open."

www.washingtonpost.com

#1 | Posted by mmike at 2010-01-20 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

No real surprise on the dissenting opinions.

#2 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2010-01-20 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

No real surprise on the dissenting opinions.

Because they would rather have heard argument on the merits, to allow for a more fully developed record and informed decision?

Yeah, those bastards.

#3 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-20 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.

When, if ever, has thomas disagreed with Scalia? And I'm betting Thomas didn't write the dissent, he just signed it.

#4 | Posted by northguy3 at 2010-01-20 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now it will be much easier to intimidate jurors.

#5 | Posted by wurster at 2010-01-20 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seven of the nine apparently felt that the need to hear oral arguments was unnecessary or perhaps the Georgia courts position had no merit.

#6 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2010-01-20 10:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

NorthGuy3 -

You are a moron. Do your homework before you make such outlandishly idiotic remarks.

#7 | Posted by flaglerkid at 2010-01-21 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Guess we know what the first motion will be in the World Trade Center terror trials in NY. Now every criminal organization will find it easier to jury intimidate.

#8 | Posted by Diablo at 2010-01-21 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

When, if ever, has thomas disagreed with Scalia? And I'm betting Thomas didn't write the dissent, he just signed it.

#4 | Posted by northguy3

Your ignorance is astounding...

#9 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-01-21 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

When, if ever, has thomas disagreed with Scalia? And I'm betting Thomas didn't write the dissent, he just signed it.

#4 | Posted by northguy3

Wow, if someone would have said the same thing about homie the prez, they would have been called "raysis".

#10 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2010-01-21 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

When did the Supremes come back together? I liked that song " Stop in the name of Love, ooooohhh, oooooh I luv yous baby ooooohhh ooooh phlatuey, spituey, and that wrap song where the guys spits and sputters and slobbers all over himself, can't think of the name of it, but it is very romantical.

#11 | Posted by rightnut at 2010-01-21 07:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think he is on sesame street now.

#12 | Posted by rightnut at 2010-01-21 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bringing our children to a higher degree of learning.

#13 | Posted by rightnut at 2010-01-21 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag: