The Impeachment Trials of Donald John Trump: How Senate Jurors Strengthened the Case Against Federal Felon-Juror Exclusion

In 2020 and then again in 2021, former President Donald John Trump faced an impeachment trial. Prior to each, a parade of Senators—charged with acting as jurors in the matter—publicly stated their verdict preference, some even discounting the need for evidence. In our federal court system, citizens with a felony criminal history are permanently barred from serving as a juror. In justifying this categorical exclusion, courts and lawmakers primarily allege that those who have been convicted of a felony lack the requisite character to serve, as they have shown a propensity to flout the law. In short, proponents of exclusion argue that those with felony convictions—if allowed to take part in jury service—would corrupt and delegitimize the process. This essay argues that by openly defying their oath to deliver “impartial justice,” a number of U.S. Senators strengthened the already compelling case for including citizens with a felony criminal history in the federal jury pool

Felon Jurors in Vacationland

Maine is the only jurisdiction in the United States that places no limitations on a convicted felon’s juror eligibility. Instead, Maine screens prospective felon-jurors using their normal jury selection procedures. In recent years, scholars have suggested that meaningful community engagement can help facilitate former offenders’ reintegration and criminal desistance. From that theoretical posture, a number of empirical studies have explored the connection between participation in the electorate and the reentry of former offenders. Those studies suggest that voting has the potential to prompt pro-social changes among former offenders. Still, to date, no research has focused on jury service as a form of civic inclusion that may foster successful reintegration and criminal desistance. Drawing on data derived from a large-scale field study in Maine, the present article addresses this research void, arguing that the jury is perfectly positioned as a tool for change, employable by jurisdictions seeking to facilitate the successful reentry of former offenders. This article further notes that Maine is the only U.S. jurisdiction that has exploited this transformative power of the jury process

A Meaningful Seat at the Table: Contemplating Our Ongoing Struggle to Access Democracy

In recent years, felon-voter disenfranchisement has received considerable attention from academics, policymakers, and the media. In turn, a number of jurisdictions have eased record-based voter restriction statutes. And while those efforts represent a significant step toward full civic reintegration for those with a felony criminal history, they are far from comprehensive, as they regularly omit citizens with certain types of felony convictions and typically address only one form of civic marginalization. Focusing on recent reform in the area of civic restrictions, this Article suggests that incomplete civic restoration comes with significant consequences that ought to be considered during legislative negotiations. This Article further suggests that by capitulating to emotive, non-empirical opposition to full civic reinstatement, lawmakers run the risk of validating arguments that have no scientific or logical foundation

A Meaningful Seat at the Table: Contemplating Our Ongoing Struggle to Access Democracy

In recent years, felon-voter disenfranchisement has received considerable attention from academics, policymakers, and the media. In turn, a number of jurisdictions have eased record-based voter restriction statutes. And while those efforts represent a significant step toward full civic reintegration for those with a felony criminal history, they are far from comprehensive, as they regularly omit citizens with certain types of felony convictions and typically address only one form of civic marginalization. Focusing on recent reform in the area of civic restrictions, this Article suggests that incomplete civic restoration comes with significant consequences that ought to be considered during legislative negotiations. This Article further suggests that by capitulating to emotive, non-empirical opposition to full civic reinstatement, lawmakers run the risk of validating arguments that have no scientific or logical foundation

Felon-Jurors' Impact on Deliberation Satisfaction: Do They Really "Infect" the Process?

Forty-nine states, the federal government, and the District of Colombia, statutorily restrict citizens with a felony conviction from serving as jurors. Proponents of felon-juror exclusion justify the practice by suggesting that those with a felony criminal history, if allowed to serve, would infect the adjudicative process. No data supports this assumption. Rather, evidence tends to demonstrate that those with a felony conviction welcome jury service and perform admirably as jurors. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data from a mock jury experiment, we build on this prior research, exploring the impact of diversity on mock jurors' views of jury service. Findings reveal that diversity of experience, in the form of a felony criminal history, does not "infect" the jury process. Instead, results indicate that the inclusion of felon-jurors has either no effect on or, in some instances, actually increases juror satisfaction. Specifically, the inclusion of felonjurors makes it more likely that members of a mixed jury view deliberations as helpful for the group and their own opinions as highly valued. These findings support prior research demonstrating the positive impacts of diversity on jury deliberations, informing literatures on felon-juror exclusion and the role of deliberations in shaping attitudes