-
Notes
- NYU Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
165 NOTES Notes to the Foreword 1. For more information on this event and its effects, see Charles J. Ogletree Jr., All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half Century of Brown v. Board of Education (New York: Norton, 2004), 45–48. 2. Austin Sarat & Charles J. Ogletree Jr., From Lynch Mob to the Killing State: Race and the Death Penalty in America (Charles Hamilton Houston Institute Series on Race and Justice) (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 8, 150–51, 225–26. 3. Hollins v. State of Oklahoma, 295 U.S. 394, 395 (1935). See Paul Finkelman, “Not Only the Judges Robes Were Black: African American Lawyers as Social Engineers,” 47 Stan. L. Rev. 161, 187 (1994). 4. 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972). 5. See Justice Marshall’s concurring opinion in Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986): “The decision today will not end the racial discrimination that peremptories inject into the jury selection process. That goal can be accomplished only by eliminating peremptory challenges entirely.” See also Charles 166 / Notes to the Introduction J. Ogletree Jr., “Just Say No! A Proposal to Eliminate Racially Discriminatory Uses of Peremptory Challenges,” 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1099 (1994). 6. Earl Caldwell, “Angela Davis Acquitted on All Charges,” New York Times (June 5, 1972). 7. G. K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles, “The Twelve Men” (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1920), 87–88. The quote is from the original source. Judge Arnason took some minor liberties with the text. See Caldwell, “Angela Davis Acquitted on All Charges,” for the original transcript at the Davis trial. Notes to the Introduction 1. William Powers, “Put Up Your Dukes,” The Atlantic, July 4, 2006. 2. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). 3. Rachel E. Barkow, “Recharging the Jury: The Criminal Jury’s Constitutional Role in an Era of Mandatory Sentencing,” 152 U. Pa. L. Rev. 33, 54 (2003), citing William E. Nelson, Americanization of the Common Law: The Impact of Legal Change on Massachusetts Society, 1760–1830 (Georgia: Georgia University Press, 1994), 96. 4. Albert Alschuler & Andrew Deiss, “A Brief History of Criminal Jury in the United States,” 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 867, 870, n.15 (1994); “Development in the Law: The Civil Jury: IV: Unshrinking the Federal Civil Jury,” 110 Harv. L. Rev. 1466, 1468 (1997). 5. The Declaration of Independence, para. 20 (U.S. 1776). 6. Alschuler & Deiss, “A Brief History,” 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. at 869–70. See also Lisa Litwiller, “Has the Supreme Court Sounded the Death Knell for Jury-Assessed Punitive Damages ? A Critical Re-examination of the American Jury,” 36 U.S.F. L. Rev. 411 (2002). 7. Leonard W. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights (New Haven: Yale University Press 1999), 227. 8. Alschuler & Deiss, “A Brief History,” 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. at 870. 9. U.S. Const., amend. V, VI, VII. 10. Akhil Reed Amar, “Reinventing Juries: Ten Suggested Ideas,” 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1169, 1170 (1995) (“[T]he ‘no prior restraint’ doctrine that intertwined with freedom of the press had its deepest roots in jury trial ideas. A prior restraint could issue from a judge via an injunction, and have bite in contempt proceedings that excluded a jury; nonprior restraints, [18.189.180.244] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 05:40 GMT) Notes to the Introduction / 167 like libel judgments, could have bite only if the government could persuade a jury of the publisher’s peers to rule against him.”); Stephen A. Siegel, “Injunctions for Defamation, Juries, and the Clarifying Lens of 1868,” 56 Buff. L. Rev. 655, 664–70 (2008); Michael I. Meyerson, “The Neglected History of the Prior Restraint Doctrine: Rediscovering the Link Between the First Amendment and the Separation of Powers,” 34 Ind. L. Rev. 295, 321 (2001); Akhil Reed Amar, “The Bill of Rights as a Constitution,” 100 Yale L.J. 1131, 1150 (1991). 11. Amar, “The Bill of Rights,” 100 Yale L.J. at 1179–80. 12. Amar, “Reinventing Juries,” 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev. at 1170–72. 13. See also United States v. Kandirakis, 441 F. Supp. 2d 282, 309–15 (D. Mass 2006). 14. Gregory E. Mize, Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, & Nicole Waters, The State of the States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts, National Center for State Courts, Executive Summary, at 2 (2010). NCSC statistics estimate that annually there are 148,558 state jury trials, 5,940 federal jury trials, with 1,526,520 citizens actually impaneled. 15. Id. NSSC estimates...