Opinion ID: 1231096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Dissent's Jury Selection Concern

Text: The Sixth Amendment provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. U.S. Const, amend VI. In Fell's case, there is no question that each and every juror who voted to impose the death penalty was a resident of the State and District of Vermont. Nor is there any question as to the impartiality of these jurors. The dissent nevertheless urges us to consider en banc whether federalism principles require us to construe the Sixth Amendment vicinage requirement to demand not only that a federal criminal jury be drawn from the relevant state and district, but also that its members somehow represent the local values of that vicinage. Specifically, the dissent interprets Vermont's lack of death penalty legislation as evidence that presumably a large portion of the population . . . is opposed to the death penalty. Post at 283. It submits that a proper respect for federalism might require a federal judge, in selecting a capital jury in such a state, to be attuned to whether the jury members (and not just the jury pool . . .)though willing to follow the laware also representative of a state's overall opposition to the death penalty. Post at 284. The dissent suggests that we consider en banc whether to remand this case to ask the able District Judge whether, in striking Juror 64, he fully considered the constitutional relevance of the values of Vermonters, the values of the jurisdiction in which he sat. Post at 285. Respectfully, I think no such en banc review, much less such a remand, is warranted in this case.