Final answer:
In the legal scenario, Helen, a selected juror who believes the accused is guilty, should withhold her opinion. This is in line with the Sixth Amendment that prescribes the need for an impartial jury in trials. Thus, a juror's decision should solely be based on evidence presented in court and not on external influences or preexisting beliefs.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the given scenario where Helen Cisneros has been called for jury duty and believes the accused is guilty, it's imperative to remember that a juror must be impartial when hearing a case. This, indeed, is a critical requirement by the Sixth Amendment. Hence, when asked if she has formed any opinion based on the television coverage, as a responsible citizen, Helen should b) Withhold her opinion.
She needs to ensure her personal opinions don't affect the administration of fair justice. To foster this, jurors are typically reminded not to discuss the case out of court, and to base their decisions on evidence presented in court rather than external influences or preconceived notions. They must hear the evidence and decide whether it points overwhelmingly towards guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Sixth Amendment indeed guarantees the right of the accused to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. Thus, any opinion Helen has formed based on the media coverage should not be disclosed, as this could lead to bias and prevent her from fulfilling her role as an impartial juror.
Learn more about Jury Duty