Juror Questions

Every once in a while I come across a ruling that’s so unfair I can hardly believe what I’m reading. State v. Detrich, a 1997 Arizona Supreme Court case, contains one of those rulings.

The defendant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to use his proposed jury questionnaire, which included questions about jurors’ racial attitudes, biases, and prejudices. The Court ruled against the defendant because he did not show that the trial judge’s failure to submit his questionnaire to the jury “resulted in a biased jury or rendered his trial fundamentally unfair.”

The Court claimed the defendant offered no evidence of bias or prejudice of the jurors. Although the defendant argued there was no way of knowing whether they might have had some kind of racial animus because the trial court had not allowed his questions, the Court said that “speculation” was insufficient to meet the burden of proving that he was not provided a fair and impartial jury.

I hope that the defendant’s failure to make a contemporaneous objection on the issue played a large part in the Court’s decision, but the opinion says the defendant’s “speculation” about racial attitudes was without merit regardless.

If the defendant’s arguments really are just insufficient “speculation,” the Court created an awful situation. The only way to successfully argue the proposed questions should have been submitted would be by showing the jury was biased. The only way to show the jury was biased would be by asking them the proposed questions. How can anyone in their right mind think that’s fair?