Dr. Death c.duntch

[Adiddy]

Jurisdiction

Texas

Dr. Duntsch continued practicing medicine even after they knew he was intentionally hurting his patients the reason nobody wanted to prosecute the case was because they didn't think they would be able to teach a jury the difference between him intentionally hurting his patients and just making mistakes. I was under the impression that you were Tried by a jury of your peers if that's the case why was his jury not made up of other people in the medical industry would this not have fixed that issue and could they have not stopped him from hurting a lot more people?

 

[adjusterjack]

The US Constitution does not guarantee anybody a right to a "jury of one's peers."

Does that statement surprise you?

There are 3 sections in the US Constitution that mention "jury."

Article II, Section 2 - "The trial of all crimes shall be by jury and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes have been committed."

Sixth Amendment - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state where the said crimes shall have been committed."

Seventh Amendment - "In all suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

In seeking an Impartial jury both sides will seek to exclude anybody with a bias for or against the accused. That's why you aren't likely to see medical professionals on a jury where a doctor is being tried.

State constitutions might or might not use the word peers but, even in those contexts, it would still mean impartial.

 

[flyingron]

While peers doesn't appear in the Constitution, the term comes from English law and has never meant the jury were made of people exactly like the accused, it just means commoners were tried by commoners.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I was under the impression that you were Tried by a jury of your peers if that's the case why was his jury not made up of other people in the medical industry would this not have fixed that issue and could they have not stopped him from hurting a lot more people?

A couple of things to note. The term "peer" used in the phrase "jury of one's peers" takes its meaning from the 18th century's notions of class. It has nothing to do with occupation. Peerage was (and in England still today, though it's not important there as it used to be) is the system used to rank the population in terms of nobility. A peer is a person of the same noble rank. By tradition, the monarch has no peers (that is, no one else is of the same rank as the reigning king or queen) and commoners are excluded from the peerage system since they have no titles of nobility. Thus, if an Earl was tried, the phrase "jury of his peers" would his jury would be made of nobles equal in rank to that of the Earl.

The U.S. Constitution did away with titles of nobility and thus did away with the peerage system. So, strictly speaking, the phrase "jury of one's peers" really has no place in the US legal system because there are no peers. In the U.S. everyone is essentially what would be a commoner in the English class system.

Rather, the phrase "jury of one's peers" is used today when discussing law in the U.S. as a shorthand for what the Constitutional requirement for choosing jury members in criminal cases:

The Sixth Amendment guarantees those accused of a crime the right to trial by an impartial jury "drawn from a fair cross-section of the community." United States v. Jefferson, 725 F.3d 829, 835 (8th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1954, 188 L.Ed.2d 972 (2014). To establish a prima facie case of a fair-cross-section violation, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community, such as African-Americans; (2) that the representation of this group in jury venires is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that the underrepresentation is due to "systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). ​

United States v. Evans, 830 F.3d 761, 769 (8th Cir. 2016). In short, peer in that that common phrase "jury of one's peers" has gone from the original English meaning of having the jury made up of the same rank of nobility to a very different meaning: the jury is drawn from a "fair cross-section of the community". So it is not required that the is entirely made of people in the same occupation, the same race, the same sex, etc. A doctor charged with a crime does not have a right to a jury panel of all doctors as that would not be a panel that is a "fair cross-section of the community." Indeed, there is no requirement that a single doctor have been on the jury. A jury randomly selected from the community and that does not have any members with a bias for or against the defendant is generally going to meet that requirement.