PREJUDICE. A particularly influential power influencing the verdict; The inclination or inclination of the mind towards a particular object. 2. Justice requires that the judge be unbiased for or against anyone; and that his mind should be perfectly free to act as required by law. 3. However, there is a type of bias experienced by courts to influence them in their judgments, namely a bias in favour of a group of cases or individuals as opposed to a case or an individual person. A few examples will illustrate this. Distortion is felt for convenience. 1 ves. Senators 13 and 14; 3 ATK. 524.
It is also felt in favour of the legal heir as if there were an heir on the one hand and a simple volunteer on the other. Willes, R. 570 1 W. Bl. 256; Amb. R. 645; 1 Ball & B. 309 1 Wils. R. 310 3 Atk. 747 Id. 222.
On the other hand, the court relies against double portions for children; M`Clell. R. 356; 13 Price, R. 599 against double provisions and double satisfactions; 3 ATK. R. 421 and against confiscation. 3 T. R. 172. Empty, usually 1 Burr. 419 1 Bos. & Shoot.
614; 3 Bos. & Shoot. 456 ves. Jr. 648 Jacob, Rep. 115; 1 revolution. and R. 350. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a case in which a criminal defendant alleged that the prosecutor had committed racial prejudice in jury selection. James Kirkland Batson, a black man, was charged with burglary and receiving stolen property. During jury selection, the prosecutor used his compelling challenges to fire six potential jurors, including the four blacks on the jury.
Batson`s defense attorney filed a motion to exonerate the entire jury on the grounds that the prosecutor violated the defendant`s right to an impartial Sixth Amendment jury and his right to equal protection under the law. The judge rejected the request, and Batson was eventually convicted by the all-white jury. The High Court overturned the Kentucky Supreme Court`s ruling requiring the defendant to prove systematic bias. The landmark Supreme Court decision in Batson v. Kentucky has eased the burden of proof for allegations of bias in jury selection, stating that a defendant only has to prove the jury`s disqualification on the basis of bias in his own case. In Written Decision 7-2, Justice Lewis Powell wrote: A judge who is biased in a hearing over which he presides has a mental attitude towards a litigant that prevents the judge from fairly supervising the proceedings, thereby depriving the party of the right to a fair trial. A judge may retire to avoid the appearance of bias. In the event that a judge suspected of bias does not withdraw, a party may attempt to exclude him or her from the case by filing a motion to dismiss or disqualify the judge. The party must have good reasons to request the disqualification of the judge.
These grounds are called “grounds for refusal”. Most requests to challenge a judge are based on bias against one party or the positive opinion of another. In some jurisdictions, a judge can only be removed “for cause”. This means that the party seeking removal from the judge must have good reasons, such as bias. However, other jurisdictions allow a party to challenge or remove a judge from the case on a “mandatory” basis. This means that a party can request the removal of the judge without giving a specific reason. In such jurisdictions, such a “compelling challenge” is a unique opportunity not to allow parties to “judge” by rejecting judges until they find one they like. In the context of criminal evidence, bias is used to describe the relationship between a party and a witness that could lead the witness to testify unknowingly or otherwise for or against a party, as in United States v. Slough 22 F.Supp.3d 29 (2014). During jury selection for Juan`s trial, a total of eight Hispanics are on the jury — and each of them is routinely fired by the prosecutor. In other words, he provided no reason to fire the Hispanic jury.
The resulting almost all-white jury panel condemns Juan. This example of bias is not about Juan`s guilt, but about the fact that he received a fair and impartial trial from a jury chosen from a cross-selection of the community. Bias is an unfair act, policy, evaluation or decision that is attributable to certain characteristics. In the legal system, a judge or jury should make impartial decisions based on a fair and impartial examination of the facts and the law. If a judge or jury has a preconceived opinion on a party to a dispute or on any of the issues, they may not be able to make a fair and impartial decision. Even in a case where the jury was chosen because none of them had a prior opinion, the judge`s bias may prevent him or her from fairly supervising the trial. n. the disposition of a judge, arbitrator, prospective jury or person making a court decision against or in favour of any of the parties or a group of persons. This can be proven by remarks, factual, rational or illegal behavior or any other unfair behavior. Prejudices can be against an ethnic group, homosexuals, women or men, defendants or plaintiffs, large corporations or local parties. Obtaining a “local” decision is a form of bias that is the bane of the lawyer outside the city.
There is also the subtle bias of some male judges in favor of pretty women. Obvious bias is one reason for reversing the appeal, but it is difficult to prove because judges are generally careful to show apparent fairness in their comments. The possibility of jury bias is considered during questioning at the beginning of the trial as part of an interrogation process called voir dire. During voir dire, if a potential juror indicates bias against one of the parties to a prosecution, he or she may be successfully challenged for cause and denied a jury seat. Robert`s divorce is expected to go to Judge Hardnose, who is known to favor women in litigious divorce cases. Robert`s lawyer recommends transferring the case to another judge, although there is no evidence that he has a biased opinion in Robert`s case. To ensure that Robert received an impartial and fair hearing, his lawyer filed a convincing challenge and dismissed Judge Hardnose. In this example of disqualification for bias, the case is referred to the Fair Court. The term bias refers to a person`s tendency to favor one thing, idea, or person over another.
In a legal context, bias can cause a person, such as a judge or juror, to treat someone unfairly, even if court hearings and proceedings are designed as impartial assessments of the facts of a case. Bias can also affect issues such as job applications or entering the country and recruiting people for other purposes. To explore this concept, consider the following definition of bias. A prejudice is the feeling or demonstration of a pre-existing inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something. Jury selection is a process in which lawyers from all sides of the case interview potential jurors to weed out those who may have some sort of bias. While each party may dismiss an unlimited number of potential jurors for cause, each party receives a limited number of persuasive challenges that allow it to dismiss potential jurors without giving reasons. Nevertheless, dismissing potential jurors on discriminatory grounds is illegal, and a tendency to such dismissals can cause problems, especially for a prosecutor who engages in such dismissals. Impartiality is the cornerstone of the U.S. legal system, as civil and criminal cases fill the country`s courtrooms on a daily basis. If a case goes to court in which the judge has a connection or a preconceived opinion, the question of impartiality will be questioned. Although a judge believes he can decide fairly, the mere appearance of bias could jeopardize the case and lead to an appeal against the final decision. In such a case, the judge can withdraw from the case, which means apologizing or withdrawing and handing it over to another judge.
However, there are many reasons why a party believes a juror is biased, making it fairly easy to state a legitimate objective. Other issues that may obscure a juror`s opinion include: inclination; crooked; Previous ownership: a preconception; A predisposition, cause or problem to be decided in a particular way that does not leave the mind completely open to beliefs. Maddox v. State, 32 Ga. 5S7, 79 am. Dec. 307; Pierson v. Staat, 18 Tex. App.
55S; Hinkle v. Staat, 94 Ga. 595, 21 p. E. 601. This term is not synonymous with “harm.” By using this word in a law declaring the exclusion of jurors, the legislator intended to describe a different, slightly different ground of exclusion. A person cannot be biased against another without being biased against them; But it can be biased without being biased. Prejudice is “a particularly influential force that influences judgment; The inclination of the mind towards a particular object. It cannot be assumed that Parliament expected to assure the jury of a state of mind absolutely free from any inclination to one side or the other. The law means that, although a jury has not rendered a verdict for or against the prisoner before the evidence is heard at trial, if it is under such influence that its mind is influenced on one side or the other so that it does not decide the question on the basis of the evidence, He is incompetent. Willis v.
Staat, 12 Ga. 444. The real bias is that the jury has a mindset that satisfies the court, in the exercise of reasonable discretion, that the jury cannot hear the issues impartially and without prejudice to the essential rights of the disputing party.
Recent Comments