Kali L.

Eyster
Professor Jack Visnaw III
Writing 121
25 September 2017

PROPOSAL FOR POTENTIAL RESEARCH PROJECT

Submitted by Kali Eyster

September 25th, 2017

The following is a proposal addressed to the Research Topic Approval Committee regarding a
potential research opportunity. The following will address the current system in place regarding
jury selection in Wayne County, Michigan and bring forth a personal account related to the jury
selection process as a whole in an effort to shine some light on the often underhanded
discriminatory practices still in play today in the court system, despite the steps that have been
taken in order to protect the right to serve granted to all U.S citizens.

The proposed research will focus primarily on race, gender, and age as they relate to the concepts
and ideas regarding discrimination, personal prejudice, bias, and stereotyping. Further, said
research will seek further insight into the laws that have been put in place in order to protect U.S
citizens and ascertain whether or not each individual, regardless of race, gender, and age, have
the same opportunities and privileges available to them in relation to juror selection.

Guiding Inquiry

What laws have been established, both throughout the United States and specifically in Wayne
County, Michigan in order to help protect the right to serve for U.S citizens and how might these
laws prevent potential discrimination based on race, gender, and age in the jury selection
process?

Background
I chose to focus on potential discrimination in the jury selection process as my research topic
because I was recently selected to serve on a jury for the Honorable Judge Mark Slavens court.
The trial took place in Detroit, Michigan at the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice over a period of
four days.

Issues
It was my first time engaging in the jury selection process, or voir dire, as is the Latin origin
(to speak the truth). During the process I was called, along with twenty or so other Wayne
County residents, to sit before Judge Slavens and hear about the case I would potentially be
working on. The judge, along with both the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney, called
groups of fourteen to sit in the juror designated area and answer questions regarding the case.
The point of this process was to select jurors who were capable of remaining fair and impartial
throughout the trial, as they would then be expected to deliberate amongst themselves and reach
a consensus regarding the charges placed on the defendant.

The entire process took roughly two hours and I was shocked by both the kind of the questions
that were asked and the level of intensity with which the attorneys, specifically the defense
attorney, spoke. At times it felt less like privilege to be there and more like a punishment, as the
questions became more pointed and I watched on as person after person was dismissed or further
grilled for answering the question to the best of their ability. I believed the line of questioning to
be rather purposeful and aimed towards specific candidates. One individual, a young college
student, was asked about any history of domestic or sexual violence she may have encountered
as it related to the case. She answered that she had in fact been abused in the past and wished not
to comment. The defense attorney then prodded her for answers, making her recount her past
trauma and then shaming her for her potential inability to remain fair and impartial. He
maintained that she could not possibly sit on the jury as she would be unable to remove herself
from the case and not see herself as the victim. After fifteen or so minutes of questioning I
watched as the judge chimed in in order to stop the line of questioning and the Deputy Sheriff
brought the woman a tissue, as she had began to cry.

Other instances I deemed inappropriate involved the dismissal of two older gentleman and their
history with war, a young black man and his employment history, and a young woman and her
potential inability to make a determination based on less than the facts. Each situation was
similar to the above account in that the attorney went too far with their line of questioning and
entered a realm in which they were asking for personal information that did not pertain to the
case in question. While I recognize that the goal of the jury selection process is to choose a set
of individuals who will be able to judge the trial in a fair and unbiased manner and be able to
reach a verdict regarding the case in question in the name of justice, I feel that both attorneys
took advantage of their authority and are guilty of letting person prejudice and bias get in the
way of making fair and accurate calls involving juror selection. I acknowledge that the attorneys
are allowed a certain degree of leniency in their questioning and are able, under law, to set forth
a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause regarding a specific candidate in order to maintain
an unbiased jury, however, I feel that in this case both attorneys went far and beyond the
necessary actions to form said jury and instead worked on the side of personal bias in order to
weed out those they felt incapable of performing their duty in relation to race, gender, and age.
Proposed Solution

In researching my topic I will focus specifically on what laws have been put in place, both
throughout the United States and specifically in Wayne County, Michigan in order to prevent a
prosecutor from rejecting a potential juror based on their racial/ethnic background, gender, and
age. I will break this section down into the three components (race/ethnicity, gender, and age)
and research what laws, if any, exist that are specific to the category I had established. I will
then take the information I have found and give an in depth explanation of the particular law,
focusing on the the time period in which it was established, through which court it was approved,
and how it might help (or not help) a group of people/person.

I will also focus specifically on the language used in the particular document (law) and what that
might mean prosecutor expected to follow it, and or individual it is supposed to be protecting.
After I have done extensive research regarding the protections put in place regarding a citizens
right to serve in court I will come to a conclusion and discuss whether or not these
laws/documents have truly helped citizens or whether or not the language used allows for a
certain amount of wiggle room, in which a more underhanded (passive) form of discrimination
could take place without any real consequences. Here I will relate my findings back to my
personal experience with the jury selection process and discuss how the information I have found
might put what I witnessed into a better context and help me to make sense of the experience as a
whole.

Benefits of Research

By allowing me to research this topic I would be able to better understand the jury selection
process as whole as it relates to the world at large and perhaps be able to make sense of the
experience I had as a juror. By having a greater level of knowledge on this topic I would feel
more comfortable speaking on the subject in particular as it tackles the ideas and concepts
surrounding race, gender, and age and would then be able to take what I have learned to a larger
audience and attempt to start a conversation. With this newfound knowledge I could better help
those I encounter realize why this topic is relevant and how it relates to current issues/events that
might be happening in our area/throughout the world (Race relations, feminism, our current
administrations attempt to take necessary health care away from women, generational
divides/the inability to connect the youth and past generations, white privilege) and is, most
importantly, something that affects everyone and therefore needs to be addressed.

References

A placeholder for any information I receive from outside sources and therefore must include.
Citations.