case 4

docx

School

Florida State College at Jacksonville *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4403

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MajorAtomHyena16

Case Brief 4 Jack Roland MURPHY, Petitioner, v. State of FLORIDA. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Argued April 15, 1975. Decided June 16, 1975. Facts: There was a case brought against Jack Roland Murphy in 1970 that involved a robbery taking place while Murphy was armed and/or assaulting others, and Murphy was convicted of the crime and sentenced to life in prison. As a result of his previous crimes being covered by the media, Murphy sought a change of venue. There is no doubt that Murphy became famous for his participation in the 1964 jewel heist of the “Star of India,” a rare precious sapphire that was housed at the New York Museum of Natural History at the time. According to national media coverage, Murphy has been given the nickname "Murph the Surf" as a result of this incident. It is also worth mentioning that Murphy was also arrested and indicted in Florida for two murders, one of which was referred to as the "Whiskey Creek Murders" due to the national publicity surrounding the convictions. Murphy claims that the national publicity surrounding these two convictions tainted the jury and violated his right to a fair trial. The motion was denied, and Murphy was convicted. The denial of Murphy's request to change venues after his conviction violated his right to a fair trial, which he claimed in a habeas corpus petition. The court denied Murphy's request and Murphy filed for habeas corpus. It was ruled by the district court that the jury was properly screened for prejudice and his petition was dismissed. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision.

Procedural History: Ruled by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and dismissed. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. Issue: Whether a petitioner's right to a fair trial has been violated as a result of the possibility that the jury has been prejudiced by the national publicity surrounding previous crimes prior to the trial. Rule: A defendant is required to have a jury of impartial, indifferent jurors to ensure fairness. There is no requirement that qualified jurors know everything. It would be impossible to establish a standard in which the mere existence of a preconceived notion about the guilt or innocence of an accused is sufficient to rebut the presumption of impartiality of a prospective juror. It is sufficient if the juror can disregard his impressions or opinions and render a verdict based on the evidence. Nevertheless, it remains open to the defendant to demonstrate that the juror holds a similar opinion in his mind that raises the presumption of partiality, regardless of the juror's assurances that he is equal to the task. Analysis: In violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial, national news coverage of the defendant's previous crimes was not sufficient to establish jury prejudice. As a result of an 8-1 majority, Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the opinion. Due to the thoroughness of the jury selection process, the Court found that the petitioner's right to a fair trial had not been violated. It was determined that previous media attention did not influence the outcome of this case, based on other cases involving jury prejudice. Murphy’s previous crimes were only briefly discussed by the jury

members who were selected and stated that they did not believe that those crimes influenced his guilt in this case. Although there was a precedent that stated that certain circumstances could create a high potential for prejudice, the Court determined that precedent was only applicable to federal courts, not state courts, as a constitutional rule that applied to state courts as well. It was determined that precedent was only applicable to federal courts, as it was an exercise of the Court's supervisory powers over federal courts. Even though the trial judge, in this case, should have exercised a greater degree of discretion in selecting the jury, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote in his concurring opinion that, even though the circumstances of the trial, in this case, did not amount to violating the defendant's right to a fair trial and due process, the circumstances of the trial did not reach that level. A dissenting opinion by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. complained that Murphy had been denied a fair trial because the jurors showed prejudice regarding Murphy's previous convictions. Conclusion: The appellate court affirmed the judgment. A fair trial was rendered impossible because of the pretrial publicity, the Court held. The trial setting or jury selection process which Murphy had complained of did not infer any actual prejudice, nor was Murphy able to demonstrate a prejudicial outcome based solely on the setting of the trial. It was not necessary for qualified jurors to be utterly ignorant of the facts or the issues in a case by the constitutional standard of fairness, although a defendant was required to have an impartial panel of indifferent jurors.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version