Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 58Jury Decision Making ProcessesCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Law and Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Exclusion of Felons from Jury Service

Open access
Kalt, Brian C.·2003·SSRN Electronic Journal
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.420840
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The lifetime exclusion of felons from jury service is the majority rule in the U.S., used in thirty one states and in federal courts. The result is that over 6% of the adult population is excluded, including about 30% of black men. The parallel issue of felon disenfranchisement has drawn considerable scholarly attention, despite its lower, declining, and less racially charged numbers. The racial composition of juries has been widely discussed in the literature as well. By contrast, felon jury service has been almost entirely ignored, despite a mass of legislation and appellate litigation, and despite glaring racial disparities. One can hardly argue that the biggest problem with the American legal system is that our juries do not have enough felons on them. Nevertheless, the question of whether and when felons (principally "ex-felons") should serve as jurors involves several larger issues. This article surveys the current law of felon exclusion and surveys its history. It then surveys and proposes constitutional arguments for and against felon exclusion, and concludes that it is constitutional either to exclude felons from juries, as most jurisdictions do, or to include them, as others do. While this result is fairly clear from current doctrine, it exposes flaws and ambiguities in that doctrine. It also undermines the principal justifications for felon exclusion (protecting the probity of the jury, and eliminating inherently biased jurors). Because both exclusion and inclusion are legal, the remainder of the article considers policy arguments for and against felon exclusion: first, the nature of the jury, and whether felon exclusion is compatible with it; next, a similar analysis regarding the treatment of felons; and finally other, general policy arguments. The discussion concludes with a recommendation that while some felon exclusion may be appropriate, it should be carefully considered and should not be based on inflexible generalizations about crimes, criminals, and trials. Instead, felons who are worthy should have a chance to contend as individuals for a seat on a jury, under the same constraints as everyone else.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.420840

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 219

  1. Colo Rev See, 2002, Colorado disqualified felons from jury service until 1989. COLO. REV. STAT. � 78-1-1 (1963) (repealed 1989) (disqualifying felons from jury service); see also OFFICE OF THE PARDON ATTORNEY, supra note 304
  2. Conn Gen See, West Supp. 2002) (disqualifying from jury service anyone who "has been convicted of a felony within the past seven years or is a defendant in a pending felony case or is in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction, 51
  3. Del See, tit. 10, � 4509(b)(6) (1999) (disqualifying from jury service "[c]onvicted felons who have not had their civil rights restored
  4. D C See, B) (disqualifying felons from jury service for "not less than one year after the completion of the term of incarceration, probation, or parole"), -1904(a) (2001) (delegating power to promulgate specific jury plan to Board of Judges of Superior Court); JURY PLAN FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA � 7(f) (requalifying felons for jury service "ten years after the completion of their entire sentence, 11
  5. Fla See, 1998, disqualifying from jury service those "under prosecution for any crime," and those convicted anywhere "of bribery, forgery, perjury, larceny, or any other offense that is a felony in this state or which if it had been committed in this state would be a felony
  6. G A See, 1983, not been pardoned or had his or her civil rights restored"), -120 (Harrison 1998) (stating that petit jurors are selected "in the same manner that grand juries are drawn), Ga. Op. Att'y Gen, 69
  7. G A See Also, 1998, ) (basis for challenge for cause that "juror has been convicted of a felony in a federal court or any court of a state of the United States and the juror's civil rights have not been restored, 17
  8. Haw Rev See, Lexis 2002) (disqualifying from jury service those, 612
  9. Idaho See, 1986, Jury service arguably is a civil right and not a political right, but this is not the best interpretation because political rights are "consistent with direct or indirect participation in establishing or administering government," which would seem to include jury service, Idaho Op. Att'y Illinois: Challengeable for cause (for life) 360 Indiana: During sentence 361 Iowa: Challengeable for cause
  10. Kansas, During supervision or ten years from conviction, whichever is longer
  11. 86-16), available at 1986 WL 193894, *2 (giving as examples of political rights "the right of sufferage [sic], the right to hold public office, and the right of petition," as opposed to merely civil rights such as "property, marriage, contract, protection of law, etc, Gen, 81
  12. West 1999) (requiring jurors to be "[f]ree from all legal exception, of fair character, of approved integrity, of sound judgment"). It appears that a felony conviction will suffice to satisfy this standard, See 705 ILL. COMP. STAT. 305, 2
  13. 1990, A venireperson may be excused for cause where he or she has been previously charged with various crimes, 188
  14. F John, 10.1093/benz/9780199773787.article.b00197197 · DOI
  15. Decker, 1980, Collateral Consequences of a Felony Conviction in Illinois, 56
  16. 2003, Jury Commissioner, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court, 10.1177/073401680302800241 · DOI
  17. Ind See, 1998, ) (disqualifying from jury service anyone "under a sentence imposed for an offense, 33
  18. Ind. 2002) (clarifying that disqualification includes probationary period, and that restoration of rights implicitly occurs with expiration of sentence). This statute would seem to disqualify misdemeanants as well
  19. Iowa See, 915(6)(a) (West 2002) (making civil juror challengeable for cause for, 1
  20. )(a) (making criminal juror challengeable for cause for "previous conviction of
  21. Kan See, 2000, excus[ing] from jury service" anyone convicted "within 10 years immediately preceding"). In Kansas, a felon is not discharged from parole or probation until he applies for a certificate of discharge, 43
  22. Ky Rev See, 080(2)(e) (Banks-Baldwin, WESTLAW through 2002 legislation) (disqualifying from jury service one who
  23. L A See, 401(A)(5) (West Supp. 2003) (disqualifying from criminal jury service one "convicted of a felony for which he has not been pardoned" or "under indictment for a felony
  24. La Rev Stat, 1991, Life 374 Nevada: Life 375 New Hampshire: Life 376 New Jersey: Life 377, 13
  25. Life 379 North Carolina: During supervision 380
  26. One source indicates, without citation, that the Montana Attorney General has advised that "the right to sit on a jury [is] restored only by a pardon, OFFICE OF THE PARDON ATTORNEY
  27. Neb Rev See, 1995, (f) (disqualifying from grand or petit jury service "persons who have been convicted of a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment in a Department of Correctional Services adult correctional facility, when such conviction has not been set aside or a pardon issued"), 29-112 (declaring incompetent for jury service "[a]ny person sentenced to be punished for any felony, when the sentence is not reversed or annulled, 25
  28. Nebraska used to restore civil rights automatically upon the completion of one's sentence, but changed that practice when it amended NEB, REV. STAT. �, 83
  29. Nev Rev See, 2001, qualifying for jury service those
  30. N H See, Lexis Supp. 2002) (stating that "a juror shall not have been convicted of any felony which has not been annulled"). This law became effective in 1999. Id. history. Previously, New Hampshire placed no restrictions on felons, either before or after incarceration, though trial judges could exclude a felon sua sponte, See OFFICE OF THE PARDON ATTORNEY, 500
  31. Burton, 10.3320/1.2753464 · DOI
  32. N J See, 2002, requiring that juror "shall not have been convicted of any indictable offense under the laws of this State, another state, or the United States"). Between 1995 and 1997, New Jersey allowed felons on juries after they had completed their sentences, 20
  33. O K Senate, 1996, at 1, available at 1996 WL 15721471 (explaining concerns underlying restoration of exclusion, Convicted Criminals From Jury Duty, THE ITALIAN VOICE
  34. N M See, � 38-5-1 (Lexis 1998) (requiring for eligibility for jury service that one
  35. N Y See, McKinney 1992 & Supp. 2003) (qualifying for jury service those not, 510
  36. N C See, 2002, 3 (qualifying for jury service persons who "have not been convicted of a felony, 9, 13
  37. at 122 (stating that felon exclusion in South Dakota is only during incarceration), 304
  38. Tenn See, Lexis 1994) (declaring incompetent to serve as jurors those convicted of "certain infamous offenses, specially designated in this code," theft, "perjury or subordination [sic] of perjury," as well as "[p]ersons of unsound mind and habitual drunkards"). It is unclear what is meant by "certain" infamous offenses, but it appears that all felons are treated as infamous, 22
  39. 1994, Felons are rendered infamous and are disqualified from service on a jury, Crim. App. Sept, 1
  40. Tex See, Vernon 1998) (disqualifying from petit jury service all but those "not, 62
  41. Tex, 1989, 2003) (disqualifying from grand jury service those convicted of or indicted for "theft or of any felony"), 35.16(a) (disqualifying from petit criminal jury those convicted of or indicted for "theft or
  42. Tex, 1994, 2003) gives trial courts the power to restore the rights of worthy felons sentenced to community supervision. See Cuellar v. State, 70 S.W.3d, Tex. Crim. App, 815, 818
  43. 1996, Subsequently, other panels have disagreed. See, e.g., Hoffman v. State, 922 S.W.2d, 663, 10.1016/0038-1098(95)00669-9 · DOI
  44. Utah Code See, Lexis 2002) (declaring incompetent for jury service anyone "who has been convicted of a felony that has not been expunged, 78
  45. V T See, Lexis 1999) (declaring qualified for jury service those who "ha[ve] not served a term of imprisonment in this state after conviction of a felony, 962
  46. V A See, Lexis 2000) (disqualifying from jury service anyone, 8, 1
  47. Wash Rev See, West Supp. 2003) (declaring incompetent for jury service anyone
  48. 1984, are subject to discretionary restoration. See id. � � 9.92.066, .95.240, .96.050. For post-July 1, 1984 offenses, restoration is automatic upon completion of one's sentence, including parole or probation, with a possibility of early discretionary relief after half of the term of probation has been completed
  49. See W Va, CODE � 52-1-8(b)(6) (Lexis 2000) (disqualifying from jury service one "convicted of perjury, false swearing or other infamous offense
  50. 1989) (holding all felonies "infamous" for jury exclusion purposes), 449
  51. Felonies and Misdemeanors Although the focus of this Article is the exclusion of felons from jury service, some states exclude some misdemeanants as well. 401 The common law traditionally included some misdemeanors in the category of "infamous crimes" or "moral turpitude," whose violators were deemed unfit for jury service. 402 Some states followed suit, 403 though most do not, or simply equate infamous crimes with felonies
  52. See Grant, supra note 3, at 1058 (describing felon exclusion litigation)
  53. See supra notes, 347, 10.5962/bhl.title.140074 · DOI
  54. 96 So. 2d 693, 697 (Ala. App. 1957) (discussing common-law history in decision treating misdemeanor adultery as disqualifying crime of moral turpitude)
  55. 1970) (describing and approving systematic exclusion of "individuals convicted of misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, 706
  56. See supra notes 371 (Mississippi), 375, 10.3133/b1620 · DOI
  57. & Ellis, 10.1159/000150724 · DOI
  58. See OFFICE OF THE PARDON ATTORNEY, supra note 304 app. A (describing each state's restoration process)
  59. Wisconsin); see also supra note 349 (Arizona) (restoring rights automatically to first-time offenders)
  60. The states listed as lifetime excluders in Appendix 1.A, supra, fit into this category. A few examples of the rarity of pardons are illustrative. Florida apparently rejects over 80% of applications for restoration of civil rights
  61. Janet H Letter From, 2003, In Virginia, 404 pardons were granted in 1996-97 out of a population of over 200,000 felons who had completed their sentences. See Demleitner, Continuing Payment, supra note 5, at 769-70 (citing Human Rights Watch estimates); see also PETERSILIA, supra note 283, Telephone Interview by Jeff Jocks with Tanya Cooper, Georgia State Board of Pardons
  62. Demleitner, Preventing Internal Exile, supra note 5
  63. & Itzkowitz, supra note 5, at 727 (characterizing prerequisites for pardon as "perseverance, financial resources and perhaps political contacts
  64. 1998, Jackson v. State, 964 P.2d, 875, 10.1007/978-3-662-05833-6_12 · DOI
  65. State, 1961, This practice, while not widespread, has a venerable pedigree. See 5 MATTHEW BACON, A NEW 430 Loewy, supra note 421, 120
  66. F, 1992, Similar timeliness requirements apply to objections about the members of a grand jury, 254
  67. 1883, United States v. Gale, 109, 65, 10.5962/bhl.title.36446 · DOI
  68. W Va, 1982, 1989) (finding waiver despite clear showing of prejudice: "[D]uring the deliberations, [felon juror] and three other jurors were inclined toward acquitting the defendant. When he revealed that he was an ex-felon, the other three jurors then shifted to a guilty verdict."); see also Lollar v. State, 422 So, Crim. App, 809, 811
  69. Miss Ann, 1999, 13, 10.1093/benz/9780199773787.article.b00020554 · DOI
  70. 1908, 1920) (setting aside verdict where juror was convicted thief) and Rice v. State, 107 S.W. 832, 833 (Tex, Tex. Crim. App, 98, 99
  71. Tex, 1993, 1990) (en banc), a capital murder trial that had to be repeated after it was revealed that one of the jurors in the first trial had lied about her criminal history, This was a reaction to Thomas v. State, 796 S.W.2d, 44
  72. 1993, The law will help avoid future reversals of convictions in criminal trials, such as the one that occurred in the so-called 'cheerleader hitman, New Law Upholds Trial Verdicts Even If Juror Later Is Disqualified
  73. Queenan v. Territory, 71 P. 218, 220 (Okla. 1901) (citing alien disqualification case, Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U.S. 293 (1895), as well as various state cases), aff'd 190 U.S. 548 (1903)
  74. South Carolina has never overruled Garrett in a felon juror case, but it almost immediately backed away from this absolutist approach. See Mew v
  75. E G See, 2001, State, 564 N.W.2d 328 (Wis. 1997) (using "extra peremptory" theory to automatically grant new trial), overruled by State v
  76. Lindell provides a list of cases from additional states in which reversal is automatic in such situations, stating that "there is no clear majority rule
  77. 2000, United States v, 304
  78. Lindell, 10.1002/9781119052388 · DOI
  79. 1990, Day v. State, 784 S.W.2d, 955, 10.1016/0167-2738(90)90161-j · DOI
  80. S W, 1983, App. 1946) (characterizing jury requirements as such in case where juror was properly excluded), Tex. Crim. App, 294
  81. N.W.2d, 736, 747
  82. 1998, Tex. Crim. App, 386, 392
  83. Mo, App. 1990) (advocating erring on side of exclusion). The state of Texas law is not clear. The Court of Criminal Appeals in Jones did not address its earlier decision in Walker, CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE �, 733
  84. Cf, United States v. Humphrey, 982 F.2d 254, 261 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding mere presence of felon on jury not prejudicial given that statutory disqualification does not make felon "necessarily
  85. See supra notes, 384
  86. J Starcher, 2002, concurring) (criticizing majority rule of automatic reversal due to felon juror in civil case, in light of less strict standard used in prior, criminal case). Michigan recently changed its law and abolished its distinction, n.13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc) (discussing Texas law), 298
  87. Mich, App. 1994) ("[T]he existence of potential biases or prejudices of a juror with a prior felony conviction is substantially lessened in a civil case as opposed to a criminal case."); cf. Development in the Law, supra note 230, at 1436 ("If the legal system has sufficient faith in the ability of citizenjurors to make reasoned moral judgments to entrust them with such extensive responsibility in the criminal context, 849
  88. Comm See, 1942, REPORT TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON SELECTION OF JURORS, 42
  89. This distinction, while uncommon, has deep roots
  90. Code � � ; Hopkins, 1896) (requiring grand jurors to be "most experienced, intelligent and upright men," and traverse jurors only to be, 811
  91. K Stephen, 1988, Juries and the Middling Sort: Recruitment and Performance at Devon Quarter Sessions, 182, 1200
  92. See Uggen, The federal government estimates the totalsincluding misdemeanants-in 1997 at 2.8% of adults and 9.0% of black adults of both genders, See BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, 17
  93. William Searle Holdsworth, 1944) (noting "roots both in Roman and Germanic law" of excluding criminals from jury service)
  94. & Itzkowitz, 721, 10.1111/j.0021-8774.2005.00568.x · DOI
  95. Damaska, 299, 350, 10.5040/9781472564528.ch-017 · DOI
  96. J B Post, Jury Lists and Juries in the Late Fourteenth Century, Jury Trial at Gaol Delivery in the Late Middle Ages: The Midland Circuit, 65, 1400, 10.1515/9781400859207.65 · DOI
  97. P G Lawson, Lawless Juries? The Composition and Behavior of Hertf -1624, TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE, supra note 451, 117, 10.1515/9781400859207.117 · DOI
  98. J S Cockburn, ); see also, Twelve Silly Men? The Trial Jury at Assizes, 158
  99. See Cockburn, supra note 473, at 165-67 (describing successful plan of using jurors for multiple cases)
  100. See Douglas Hay, The Class Composition of the Palladium of Liberty: Trial Jurors in the Eighteenth Century, in TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE, supra note 451, a ocratic breadth of seventeenth-century English governing institutions); see also Roberts, supra note 451, a 476 Assize of Clarendon (1166
  101. Ordinatum est per Consilium, ROTULI PARLIAMENTORUM 289
  102. 1410, Jurat' seu Recogniconibus aliquibu ne, no matter who he be, who has earlier been convicted of conspiracy, be appointed to th izes, to jury service, or any inquests within the counties or without.]). Thanks to Dr. Anna Graham for this translation
  103. E G See, Press 1942) (c. 1468-71) (describing contemporary civil jury as, 59
  104. See Stephen, 1995, A Regime of Social Death: Criminal Punishment in the Age of Prisons, SOC. CHANGE, 497, 527
  105. Grant, To be precise, prisons did exist in early colonial times to punish convicts, but this was not the principal form of punishment, CHRISTIANSON, supra note 484, 3, 59
  106. See Grant, Civil death-by which the convict was stripped of all rights, deprived of property, automatically divorced, and so on-persisted until very recently, 3
  107. Olivares, 1992, Only two states appear to maintain civil death today, and both apply it only to prisoners with life sentences, 302, 13
  108. See Grant, 3, 10.1016/b978-0-08-026104-1.50051-0 · DOI
  109. Ommonwealth, THE RIGHT TO VOTE tbl.A.1 (2000) (list 502 But see Act of Feb. 28, 1803, � 1, reprinted in 4 THE PERPETUAL LAWS OF THE person, whose name shall be put into either
  110. Laws Of, Wootten & Allee 1806, 158, 10.2172/588015 · DOI
  111. 1796, 1799) (�20 estate, or �10 estate for quarter session), 51
  112. Alexander Keyssar Ing, 1791, Estate of fifty pounds" for grand juries); Act of June 17, 1785, reprinted in CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE, supra, at 107 (�50 or freehold for petit juries); Act of, CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE, 104
  113. Va, CODE ch. 75, � � 1, 2, 12 (1819) (freehold and visible estate of $150 or $300)
  114. 1852, No property qualification shall be requ supra note 504, To be sure, these qualifications probably did not exclude most white men. Cf. KEYSSAR, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. See DEL, 109
  115. E G See, 1808, PUB. STAT. LAWS tit. XCVI, ch. 1, �, 1
  116. Laws Of, 1803, judicious," and "lawful men of fair characters"); Act of Dec. 17, 1796, � 52, repri TUCKY, supra note 504, at 201 ("good demeanor"); 1 THE GENERAL PUBLIC STATUTORY LAW AND PUBLIC LOCAL LAW OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND ch, 7
  117. P A Ch, 2577 (1806) ("sober and judicious")
  118. Cf, supra note 5, at 1063 (describing use of similar character standards in early years of Republic to disenfranchise felons)
  119. Cf, 51 (describing decline in property qualifications for voting between 1790s and 1850s), 504, 33
  120. Del, of 1831, art. IV, � 1 (providing voter qualification standard without property requirement)
  121. Md, CODE ar ired in any juror
  122. Gen Mass, � 1 (1860) (all voters qualified), 132
  123. Const, 1851, III (1821) (providing voting qualification standard without property requirement) (amended 1891); Act of
  124. V A Compare, 1858, � 1 (1849) (disqualifying those without $100 in real or personal property) with VA. REV. CODE ch. 75, � � 1, 2, 12 (1819) (requiring freehold and visible estate of $150 or $300). Some states did, however, maintain their freeholder requirements. See, e.g., A DIGEST OF THE STATUTES OF ARKANSAS ch, 49
  125. Conn, 1849, REV. STAT. �, 106, 10.1038/scientificamerican12221849-106p · DOI
  126. Comp Vt, � 14 (1851); cf. KEYSSAR, supra note 504, 15, 130
  127. E G See, 2699, 10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.u190352 · DOI
  128. Conn, 1849, REV. STAT. �, 106, 10.1038/scientificamerican12221849-106p · DOI
  129. Del, 1852, REV. STAT. ch, 109, 10.2307/3302227 · DOI
  130. A Codification, 1848, 10.1163/2210-7886_asc-19142a · DOI
  131. 1851, IOWA CODE �, 10.17077/0003-4827.3360 · DOI
  132. 1856, THE REVISED STATUTES OF LOUISIANA, 293, 10.21236/ada273354 · DOI
  133. 1857, ME. REV. STAT. tit. IX, ch, 106, 10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a7_78 · DOI
  134. Gen Mass, 1860, 132, 10.1163/2210-7886_asc-25791 · DOI
  135. R I Rev, 1857, Act of Mar, 10
  136. 1858, WIS. REV. STAT. ch, 118, 10.1038/scientificamerican12181858-118d · DOI
  137. E G See, CODE � 3439 (1852) ("esteemed in the community for their integrity
  138. A Digest, 10.2307/j.ctv75d85h.11 · DOI
  139. at 644 (directing officers to avoid selecting as jurors "persons of ill-fame, 28
  140. Conn, 1849, REV. STAT. �, 106, 10.1038/scientificamerican12221849-106p · DOI
  141. IOWA CODE � 1630 (1851) ("good moral character [and] sound judgment
  142. Me, 1857, REV. STAT. tit. IX, ch, 106
  143. Mich Comp Laws Ch, 1856, REV. STAT. ch, 128
  144. Ohio Stat, 10.2307/3302227 · DOI
  145. 1854, 1849) ("sober, intelligent and judicious") (footnote omitted); see also DE TOCQUEVILLE, supra note 126, at 197 (describing New England jury selection practice of "choos
  146. E G See, CONST. of 1818, art. VI, � 2 (limiting franchise, hence jury service
  147. Del, of 1831, art. IV, � 1 (limiting franchise, hence jury service
  148. A Codification, 10.1093/slr/hmm001 · DOI
  149. L A Const, 1856, STAT. ch, 1852, 10.1163/2210-7886_asc-23162 · DOI
  150. Ohio Stat, 1854, 62, 10.1038/scientificamerican11041854-61d · DOI
  151. Ohio Const, V, � 1 (1851) (limiting franchise, hence jury service
  152. 1858, TENN. CODE �, 4002, 10.1093/nq/s2-v.110.111b · DOI
  153. at 370 (stating that antebellum state laws barred black men from juries in all of the South and most of the North), 121
  154. Cf, KEYSSAR, supra note 504, at 62-63 (describing origin and rise of felon disenfranchisement in early nineteenth century)
  155. qual fying from voting, hence from jury service, those convicted of crime punishable by death or imprisonment in state penitentiary)
  156. DEL voting, hence from jury service, any person convicted of felony)
  157. E G See, 10.2307/1067200 · DOI
  158. Iowa Const, 1857, of 1846, art. 2, cl. 5 (disqualifying from voting, hence from jury service, those convicted of "infamous crim HE STATUTE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 497
  159. R I Const, of 1842, art. II, � 4 (disqualifying from voting, hence from jury service, those convicted of "crime deemed infamous at common law"); Act of Mar, 10
  160. 1858, convicted of certain infamous offences specially designated in this Code"); see also WIS, REV. STAT. ch, 188
  161. E G See, disqualifying from voting, hence from jury service, those convicted of "bribery, forgery, perjury, dueling, fraudulent bankruptcy, theft, or other offence TUTE LAW OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ch. IV, � 1, cl, 4
  162. A Compilation, supra note 511 ch. LVIII, � 1, at 654 ("cases where legal disabilities may be imposed for the commission of some criminal offense
  163. The, at 213 ("bribery, perjury, forgery, and other high crimes or misdemeanors, punishable by imprisonment with labor in the penitentiary
  164. Art Ohio Const, 1851, disenfranchising, hence disqualifying from jury service, "any person convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime") (amended 1923); Act of Apr. 16, 1849, pt. X, reprinted in THE GENERAL LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA, supra note 510, 1198
  165. E G See, A DIGEST OF THE STATUTES OF ARKANSAS, supra note 508 ch, 98
  166. Mich Comp Laws Ch, 1857, 128, 10.5040/9781474203067.ch-015 · DOI
  167. See Klarman, All southern and most northern states excluded black men from jury service in the antebellum period. See id. at 370. 394 (1840) (equivalent provision); REV. STA n). tech ent, 370
  168. 1087, 88 (1789) (requiring that "jurors shall have the same qualifications as are requisite for jurors by the laws of the State of which they are citizens"); Act of, See Judiciary Act of 1789, � 29, 1 Stat, 73
  169. 2000, No citizen shall be excluded from service as a grand or petit juror in the district courts of the United States or in the Court of International Trade on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status
  170. Schmidt, at 1407; see also Klarman, supra note 121, 373
  171. Shapiro, at 538 (giving statistical information in parallel context of voting)
  172. See Klarman, This nique required general white control of local governm 109, � 1 (1893) (deeming qualified voters "liable to serve as jurors"), 373
  173. Idaho Rev, 1908, felony or misdemeanor involving grand jury service); 2 LA. REV. LAWS art. 159 (Wolff 1904) ("treason, perjury, forgery, bribery, or other crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, CODE �, 3942
  174. 1907, MONT. REV. CODE �, 6338, 10.4135/9781452229300.n1135 · DOI
  175. Neb, 1901, criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary" or, STAT. tit. XIX, �, 657
  176. Nev Comp, 1900, LAWS �, 3867
  177. N D Rev, 1905, criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary" or "by special provision of law, CODE �, 514
  178. Ohio Rev, 1903, 6797, 10.1175/1520-0493(1903)31[536b:bricco]2.0.co;2 · DOI
  179. 1902, felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude
  180. S D Stat, 1901, criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary" or "by special provision of law, 699
  181. Civ Tex, Sayles 1897, 3139
  182. Utah Comp, 1907, malfeasance in office or any felony or other high crime
  183. Va, � 3139 (West 1904) ("bribery, perjury, embezzlement of public funds, treason, felony
  184. 1905, WASH. CODE �, 5939, 10.3886/icpsr08396 · DOI
  185. Wis, � 2524 (1898) (deeming qualified electors eligible for jury service)
  186. Const Wis, 1986, III, � 2 (1848) (disenfranchising "any person convicted of treason or felony
  187. Rev Wyo, 1894, malfeasance in office, or any felony or other high crime"). Other states specified that a conviction for an infamous crime would suffice (a category that may or may not have been coterminous with felonies, see supra note 402), GEN. STAT. � �, 3341
  188. Miss Pub Stat, 1906, 10.2307/785330 · DOI
  189. R I Gen, 1909, 279, 10.2307/785143 · DOI
  190. R I Const, of 1842, art. II, � 4 (disqualifying from voting, hence from jury service, those convicted of
  191. Tenn Ann, � 5815 (Marshall & Bruce 1896) ("certain infamous offenses, specially designated in this Code
  192. 1904, Still other states had incomplete standards that did not necessarily rise to the level of felon exclusion. See, 4490, 10.1057/9780230607347_16 · DOI
  193. 1901, Every person convicted of the crime of murder, rape, kidnaping, willful and corrupt perjury or subornation of perjury, a ery, sodomy or other crime against nature, incest, larceny, forgery, counterfeiting or bigamy, shall be deemed infamous, and shall forever be rendered incapable of . . . serving as a juror
  194. Rev Ind, 1393, 10.2307/1277346 · DOI
  195. Rev Me, 1904, mandating removal from jury box if "convicted of any scandalous crime, or guilty of any gross immorality, 108
  196. 1902, allowing convicted criminals to be kept off jury list at discretion of town board), 8 (mandating removal from jury box if "convicted of any scandalous crime, MASS. REV. LAWS ch, 176
  197. 1912, requiring jurors to be qualified voters), id. � 4036 (mandating removal from jury box if "convicted of any scandalous crime, or guilty of any gross immorality"), id. � 200 (disenfranchising those convicted of "burglary, arson, obtaining goods or money under false pretences, perjury, forgery, robbery, bribery, adultery, bigamy, wifebeating, housebreaking, receiving stolen goods, breach of trust with fraudulent intent, fornication, sodomy, incest, assault with intent to ravish, miscegenation, larceny, or a crime against the election laws
  198. E G See, 1893, REV. STAT. ch, 109, 10.1163/2210-7886_asc-51503 · DOI
  199. Ga, 811, 10.7554/elife.41555.014 · DOI
  200. Gen Kan, 1905, STAT. �, 3976, 10.1007/springerreference_9870 · DOI

200 of 219 shown

Cited by

See all 58

Metadata

Authors
Kalt, B. C.
Affiliations
American University (US)
Corresponding author
Kalt, Brian C.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
65
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.420840
OpenAlex
W3123562771
Cited by
58
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 17 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
  • The American University law review
  • Knowledge Commons (Lakehead University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Policy
Keywords
felons, jury service, criminal records, jury law

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Exclusion of Felons from Jury Service. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2139/ssrn.420840
The paper
Kalt, B. C. (2003). The Exclusion of Felons from Jury Service. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.420840

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.