Reference no: EM131191969 , Length: 1300 Words

Four Legal Policy Memorandum Guidelines and Rubric

Overview: For this assignment, you will write a legal policy memorandum to the district court judge addressing the controversial issue of obtaining a fair cross section of jurors to serve on a jury. By analyzing this specific issue, this memorandum will help prepare you for your Milestone Two submission in Module Five, where you will provide an in-depth analysis of the contemporary criminal justice issue that you have selected for your final project.

The continuing underrepresentation of some groups-including minorities, young adults, and the poor-remains a concern in attempting to create a fair cross section of the community represented on juries. One reason for this underrepresentation is obvious racism, bigotry, and prejudice. Another reason is that the poor often cannot afford to be on juries, because they will miss work and be compensated at a much lower wage to serve on the jury. Social class plays a strong role in conflict theory, as the theory suggests socioeconomic status directly affects the selection of jurors and the disparity in social class of those incarcerated in this country. Often, attorneys use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors, which require no show of cause or reasonable grounds to exclude. These peremptory challenges are often utilized when a juror seems apathetic or disinterested in the process. Peremptory challenges are limited in number, whereas challenges for cause (some type of conflict, bias, or affiliation with the involved parties) are unlimited.

Prompt: Use the Memorandum Template to complete the assignment. Address the following critical elements as they are reflected in the Sample Legal Policy Memorandum. These critical elements appear as headings in that document as follows:

1. Issue Presented: Summarize the issue in the form of a brief one-sentence question.

2. Short Answer: Provide a short answer which summarizes the conclusion of the memorandum.

3. Statement of Facts: Describe how the issue may negatively affect public perception of the criminal justice system.

4. Discussion: Provide a brief discussion of the issue, including the recent history of the issue and any legal precedents related to it.

5. Conclusion: Provide a conclusion based on the details of the issue outlined in the Discussion section.

6. Recommendations:

a. What recommendations should be in place to make sure that the jury pool contains a fair cross section of the community?

b. What are types of evidence-based practices can be employed to have people of lower socioeconomic status more willing to serve on a jury?

c. Based on your analysis of the issue using conflict theory, what are the best practices to ensure random selection of individuals to serve on a jury?

d. Address what the impact of this issue is on the criminal justice system. Are more organizations than only courts affected by this? Include examples of the impact on the different branches of the criminal justice system.

Legal Policy Memorandum

Note: The headings below are ones typically seen in a legal policy memorandum. Keep in mind, however, that different professions-and companies within these professions-may use different headings or formats for their memorandums.

MEMORANDUM

TO: District Judge of the Third Circuit

FROM: Assistant Prosecutor

RE: Graham v. Connor Case-Judging Use-of-Force Issues

DATE: January 1, 2016

Issue Presented

When one of our police officers is involved in a use-of-force incident, what perspective should be used in judging the reasonableness of that officer's use of force?

Short Answer

When judging reasonableness in the application of force, the perspective used is that of a reasonable, objective officer standing in the shoes of the officer at the time the application of force was used. That officer is additionally briefed to disregard 20/20 hindsight.

Statement of Facts

The case of Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989) is the applicable precedent and rule of law applicable to these situations. In Graham v. Connor (1989), an officer made a traffic stop on an individual who was diabetic. As a result of low sugar, Graham was attempting to buy orange juice. He was driven to a convenience store by Berry, pulling in expeditiously. Graham ran in the convenience store and rapidly exited after seeing the line was too long. Berry and Graham then swiftly pulled out of the convenience store parking lot. Based on the aforementioned events, Officer Connor observed this behavior and was troubled by the situation. Connor believed some type of crime or a robbery may have occurred in the convenience store. The officer conducted an investigative stop to determine whether criminal activity had taken place. Graham was incoherent and refused to comply with officer requests, running around the vehicle as a result of low insulin. Due to his behavior, Graham was subsequently handcuffed and detained while officers were conducting a preliminary investigation. At the time, the officers had no idea that Graham was diabetic. Graham was not charged with a crime but sustained injuries while being handcuffed. Graham brought suit against the officers for a violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C § 1983 for excessive use of force and violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Graham contended that the officers disregarded the fact that he was diabetic (Graham v. Connor, 1989).

Discussion

As a result of recent use-of-force issues across the country, there has been intense media scrutiny placed on law enforcement. As grand juries have convened, in both Ferguson and New York City, there has been unparalleled attention and protests as to why these officers have not been indicted. This is a result of the public having a general misunderstanding and misconception of how the law is applied. It is paramount that the general public understand the context when judging the reasonableness of incidents involving the use of force. A complete and thorough understanding of the law is critical when analyzing these incidents. Grand juries are instructed on the law when reaching their conclusions. This, in fact, is the dispositive reason as to why these grand juries have refused to indict these officers. When judging reasonableness in the application of force, grand juries are advised to stand in the shoes of the officer at the time the application of force was used. Additionally, they are briefed to disregard 20/20 hindsight based on the aforementioned Graham v. Connor (1989) standard. That judgment should be based on the "objective reasonableness" standard outlined in Graham v. Connor (1989). Police officers often have a fraction of a second to make a life-or-death decision. After the fact, that decision may in fact be wrong; however, the incident cannot be judged with hindsight. Under Graham v. Connor (1989), it is important to stand in the shoes of the officer at the time the force was being applied, to determine its reasonableness. The realization that what appears to be a real gun is in fact a toy, after the application of deadly force has been used, is a perfect illustration of this point.

However, using the Graham v. Connor (1989) analysis, was the officers' application of deadly force "objectively reasonable"?

Conclusion

In reaching its conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officers, stating in a pertinent part:

All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force-deadly or not-in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. (Graham v. Connor, 1989)

This objective reasonableness must be applied while "standing in the shoes of the officer" at the time the incident takes place Graham v. Connor (1989). The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that officers have to make split-second decisions in the course of executing their duties. The benefit of 20/20 hindsight must be disregarded when judging objective reasonableness (Graham v. Connor, 1989). Had the officers known that Graham was diabetic, they would have taken different action; however, this information was revealed only after the incident took place.

Attachment:- Memorandum Template.rar