Reece Rosen innocence project

There were many things that were unconstitutional in the trial in to kill a mocking bird. Many
amendments were broken. One was the right to a fair trial with fair jurors. The right to an impartial
jury was disobeyed. Scout describes the farmers as “sunburned, lanky, they seemed to be all
farmers, but this was natural, townsfolk rarely sat on juries, they were either struck or excused.
One or two of the jury looked vaguely like dressed up Cunninghams.” the rule about an impartial
jury was disobeyed as race was an important factor in this trial. Since race played a key role, it
was crucial that there be diversity in the jury. This did not happen, and that changed the trial.
Another issue with that rule is that according to the 14th amendment, people cannot be prevented
from being on a jury because of race. This rule was unconstitutionally broken.

Another rule that is broken is that there must be evidence to convict a person. However, this rule
was broken. “I knew that Mr Gilmer would sincerely tell the jury that anyone who was convicted
of disorderly conduct could easily have had it in his heart to take advantage of Mayella Ewell, and
that was the only reason he cared.” (223). This is not evidence. This is against the rules for
impacting the jurors descision, and is unconstitutional. 

Another rule that was broken was the rule that says anybody can be forced to testify, and have
to answer questions asked. Mayella Ewell was not compliant with this rule. “Won’t answer a word
you say long as you keep mockin’ me.” (206). That is not allowed. By rule, witnesses have to
answer questions, and she is brealing the rule.

The trial was not entirely constitutional. There were many things that happened that were against
the constitution, and impacted the trial significantly.