Hill v. State
Cop pat down the D and found c*caine inside of a Dominos box
upon responding to a armed robbery call in. D was charged with a
possession offense. D requested
a voir dire question about racial biasness to the jurors, but the court
refused to ask the question. D filed an appeal upon found guilty based
on the voir question that was denied. Ct held that he was entitled to
have the question asked to the venire regarding possible racial
prejudice and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the
request. The States only witness was a white cop;
o Hill cited Ham vs S.C. (pg 459)àBlack
civil rights activist who wanted the jurors to be ask about bias
against race and people with beards because his defense was that Police
framed him because of his civil rights activities. Ct said that racial
issues that were inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial
gave rise to the need to voir dire about racial biases to assure an
impartial jury; per the Ristaino ruling.
o Reinquest put right to Voir Dire under Due Process Clause because it was not constitutional
o In applying Ristaino,
this case was not inextricably bound with race issues and it was not
decided correctly; this ct did not follow the guidance of the S.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment