Final answer:
The comparison of the "Harrisburg Seven" and OJ Simpson trials underscores the importance of scientific jury selection in ensuring fair trial outcomes. The diversity in jury composition is crucial for a balanced verdict, which is mandated by the Sixth Amendment. Historical cases reveal systemic biases and highlight the significance of impartial and informed jury selection procedures.
Step-by-step explanation:
The subject in question involves a comparison of two high-profile cases in which "scientific jury selection" played a significant role: the "Harrisburg Seven" trial in 1972 and the OJ Simpson trial in 1995. In the context of law, scientific jury selection is a process that involves using social science techniques to select jurors who are more likely to be favorable to one side of the case. Studies of historic trials, such as the Scottsboro case from the 1930s, illustrate the systemic issues surrounding jury selection, particularly the exclusion of Black jurors leading to biased outcomes. The imperfections of past trials show how vital it is to ensure that a jury is composed of a diverse group of individuals to provide a fair and impartial decision.
Jury unanimity is a fundamental legal principle in the United States, usually requiring all jurors to agree in order to reach a verdict in criminal cases. Disagreements within the jury can lead to mistrials. The importance of ensuring a defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment, emphasizing the significance of jury composition and the legal procedures involved in the selection of a jury. Cases involving suggestive police identification procedures underscore the influence that trial processes have on jury decisions and highlight potential flaws in the selection and guidance of jury members.