The Supreme Court Case of North Carolina v. Bruce Franklin Jerrett Essay Example

court sentenced the defendant to death for the murder of Mr. Parsons, 40 years imprisonment for first-degree kidnapping and 10 years for felonious breaking and entering. Prior to the trial, the defendant moved to have the venue for the trial to be changed or have a special venire in a different county. These motions were denied by Judge Davis and later by Judge Rousseau. The denial of the motion to change the venue for the trial was erroneous and thus a new trial had to be done. In their testimonies, Deputy Sheriff Joe Vickerman, Mr. Harrill and Mr. Edmund Adams who an attorney who had no connections in the case all said that a jury who knew nothing about the case could not be appointed from the county. State v. McDougald; when such likelihood exists, a defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury outweighs the interest local residents have when trying a defendant in their county.

He appealed the ruling. The Supreme Court held that: 1. Motion for change of venue by the defendant was denied in an improper way 2. Indictment to allege first degree kidnapping was sufficient 3. The trial court should have given instructions to the jury concerning defense of unconsciousness 4. Upon submitting aggravating circumstances to the jury, the trial court did not err.

The issue was; is it possible to appoint an impartial jury from the county bearing in mind that the case was highly publicized?
There was sufficient evidence to show that the case had been discussed throughout Alleghany County and it would be impossible to select a jury from the county who had not heard the case and

this compromised justice for the defendant.

Justice Meyer joined in the majority opinion and the majority opinion was that a new trial should be done. This was because there was sufficient evidence to show that the jury was compromised. The crime occurred in a small county which was closely-knit. The case was thus different from United States v. Haldeman. The judges also relied on the fact that some jurors knew or where related in some way to the Pearsons.

Justice Mitchell was dissenting in part and concurring in part. She disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant showed sufficient evidence of the impossibility of having a fair judgment. She also disagreed with the majority on the conclusion that a new trial should be undertaken. Otherwise she concurred with the opinion of the majority. She said that the trial court should have taken measures to ensure that the jury is insulated from publicity during trial.