Juror anonymity was unknown to American common law and jurisprudence in the country's first two centuries. Anonymity was first employed...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
Juror anonymity was unknown to American common law and jurisprudence in the country's first two centuries. Anonymity was first employed in federal prosecutions of organized crime in New York in the 1980's. Although anonymous juries are unusual since they are typically only empanelled in organized-crime cases, its use has spread more recently to widely publicized cases, such as the federal prosecution of police officers accused of beating Rodney King and the trial of those accused of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In these cases, attorneys selected a jury from a panel of prospective jurors whose names, addresses, ethnic backgrounds and religious affiliations remained unknown to either side. This unorthodox procedure, designed to protect jurors from outside influence and the fear of retaliation, has occasionally been employed in New York federal courts since the trial of drug kingpin Leroy "Nicky" Barnes. Despite apparent benefits, critics assail anonymous juries on the grounds that they are an infringement of the sixth amendment guarantee of an impartial jury and because they present a serious and unnecessary erosion of the presumption of innocence.
Since many attorneys believe trials are frequently won or lost during jury selection, any procedure diminishing the role of counsel in the procedure necessitates close scrutiny and criticism. Opponents of anonymous juries argue that the procedure restricts meaningful voir dire, (questioning of the jury panel), and thereby undermines the defendant's sixth amendment right to an impartial jury. Critics also claim that jurors interpret their anonymity as proof of the defendant's criminal proclivity, thereby subverting the presumption of innocence.
However, consistent with due process and the sixth amendment, the trial judge may refuse to ask prospective jurors any questions not reasonably calculated to expose biases or prejudices relevant to the case. Although addresses and group affiliations may indicate significant potential for bias, attorneys do not have an unfettered right to this information in every circumstance. Denying access to these facts may indeed constrain an attorney's ability to assemble an ideal jury, but it violates no constitutional right.
Ques. 1/3
The primary purpose of the passage is to
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Juror anonymity was unknown to American common law and jurisprudence in the country's first two centuries. |
What it says: For the first 200 years of America (roughly 1776-1976), juries were never anonymous - everyone knew who the jurors were. What it does: Sets up historical context and establishes that anonymous juries are a recent development Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous sentences to connect to Visualization: Timeline: 1776-1976 = Known jurors | 1976-present = ??? What We Know So Far: Anonymous juries = new concept in American history What We Don't Know Yet: When they started, why they started, how they work Reading Strategy Insight: The author is setting up a "then vs. now" structure - expect to learn about the modern era next |
| Anonymity was first employed in federal prosecutions of organized crime in New York in the 1980's. |
What it says: The first anonymous juries happened in New York in the 1980s for organized crime cases. What it does: Provides the specific origin point that the first sentence set us up to expect Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly answers the "when did it start?" question from sentence 1. This is exactly the information we expected based on the historical setup. Visualization: Timeline: 1776-1980 = Known jurors | 1980s NY organized crime = First anonymous juries What We Know So Far: Anonymous juries started in 1980s NY for organized crime What We Don't Know Yet: How widespread this became, specific examples Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - the passage is following a logical chronological structure |
| Although anonymous juries are unusual since they are typically only empanelled in organized-crime cases, its use has spread more recently to widely publicized cases, such as the federal prosecution of police officers accused of beating Rodney King and the trial of those accused of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. |
What it says: Even though anonymous juries are rare and usually just for organized crime, they've expanded to famous cases like Rodney King and 1993 World Trade Center bombing. What it does: Shows evolution from the 1980s origin and provides concrete examples Source/Type: Factual observation with specific examples Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 2 by showing how the practice evolved beyond its original scope. We're getting a natural progression: origin → expansion Visualization: 1980s: Organized crime only 1990s: Organized crime + High-profile cases (Rodney King, WTC bombing) What We Know So Far: Anonymous juries started for organized crime, then spread to famous cases What We Don't Know Yet: How the process actually works, what the concerns are Reading Strategy Insight: The author is building our knowledge systematically - origin, then expansion. Expect details about the process next. |
| In these cases, attorneys selected a jury from a panel of prospective jurors whose names, addresses, ethnic backgrounds and religious affiliations remained unknown to either side. |
What it says: In anonymous jury cases, lawyers pick jurors without knowing their names, addresses, ethnicity, or religion. What it does: Explains the mechanics of how anonymous juries actually work Source/Type: Procedural description Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on "anonymous juries" by defining what "anonymous" actually means. The author is helping us understand the concept by getting specific about the process. Visualization: Normal jury selection: Lawyers know names, addresses, ethnicity, religion Anonymous jury selection: Lawyers know none of this information What We Know So Far: Anonymous juries = lawyers can't know basic demographic info about jurors What We Don't Know Yet: Why this is done, what the debate is about Reading Strategy Insight: This clarifies rather than complicates - we now understand what "anonymous" means practically |
| This unorthodox procedure, designed to protect jurors from outside influence and the fear of retaliation, has occasionally been employed in New York federal courts since the trial of drug kingpin Leroy "Nicky" Barnes. |
What it says: This unusual method protects jurors from being influenced or threatened, and has been used in NY federal courts since the Nicky Barnes drug trial. What it does: Provides the rationale for anonymous juries and gives another specific example Source/Type: Explanation of purpose plus historical example Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains WHY the procedure described in sentence 4 exists. We're getting the logical reason behind the practice. Also connects back to organized crime origins from sentence 2. Visualization: Problem: Jurors might be threatened or influenced in dangerous cases Solution: Keep their identities secret from everyone Result: Started with Nicky Barnes, continued since then What We Know So Far: Anonymous juries protect jurors in dangerous cases by hiding their identities What We Don't Know Yet: What people think about this practice Reading Strategy Insight: The author has given us a complete picture of WHAT anonymous juries are. Expect discussion of debates/controversy next. |
| Despite apparent benefits, critics assail anonymous juries on the grounds that they are an infringement of the sixth amendment guarantee of an impartial jury and because they present a serious and unnecessary erosion of the presumption of innocence. |
What it says: Even though anonymous juries seem helpful, critics attack them because they violate the constitutional right to fair juries and undermine the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. What it does: Introduces the controversy and opposition arguments Source/Type: Critics' arguments/legal objections Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with the positive rationale from sentence 5. We're now seeing the OTHER side of the debate. The word "Despite" signals this shift. Visualization: Benefits (from sentence 5): Protect jurors from threats Criticisms (this sentence): Violate constitutional rights, hurt "innocent until proven guilty" What We Know So Far: Anonymous juries have both supporters (safety) and critics (constitutional concerns) What We Don't Know Yet: Specific details of these criticisms Reading Strategy Insight: Classic RC structure: introduce concept, then show the debate surrounding it. Expect elaboration on these criticisms next. |
| Since many attorneys believe trials are frequently won or lost during jury selection, any procedure diminishing the role of counsel in the procedure necessitates close scrutiny and criticism. |
What it says: Because lawyers think jury selection often determines who wins trials, any process that limits lawyers' role in picking juries deserves serious examination and criticism. What it does: Provides additional reasoning for why critics oppose anonymous juries Source/Type: Attorney beliefs/professional perspective Connection to Previous Sentences: This reinforces and explains the criticism from sentence 6. We're getting the deeper reasoning behind the opposition. Visualization: Normal jury selection: Lawyers have full information to pick ideal jurors Anonymous jury selection: Lawyers work with limited information Lawyers' concern: This handicaps their ability to win cases What We Know So Far: Critics oppose anonymous juries because they limit lawyers' effectiveness in crucial jury selection What We Don't Know Yet: Specific examples of these limitations Reading Strategy Insight: This elaborates on the previous criticism rather than introducing new complexity |
| Opponents of anonymous juries argue that the procedure restricts meaningful voir dire, (questioning of the jury panel), and thereby undermines the defendant's sixth amendment right to an impartial jury. |
What it says: Critics say anonymous juries prevent effective questioning of potential jurors, which violates the defendant's constitutional right to a fair jury. What it does: Gives the first specific criticism with technical legal detail Source/Type: Opponents' specific legal argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This provides a concrete example of the "sixth amendment" violation mentioned in sentence 6. We're getting specific details about the general criticism already introduced. Visualization: Voir dire with full info: Lawyers can ask about background, address, religion to find bias Voir dire with anonymous juries: Lawyers can't ask these questions effectively Result: Potentially biased jurors might get selected What We Know So Far: Specific criticism #1: Anonymous juries hurt the jury questioning process What We Don't Know Yet: The second criticism about "presumption of innocence" Reading Strategy Insight: The author is breaking down the complex criticism from sentence 6 into specific, understandable pieces. |
| Critics also claim that jurors interpret their anonymity as proof of the defendant's criminal proclivity, thereby subverting the presumption of innocence. |
What it says: Critics also say that when jurors are told they're anonymous, they assume the defendant must be dangerous/guilty, which destroys "innocent until proven guilty." What it does: Provides the second specific criticism Source/Type: Critics' psychological argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This addresses the second part of the criticism from sentence 6 ("erosion of presumption of innocence"). Now we have both specific criticisms that were promised earlier. Visualization: Juror's thinking: "Why am I anonymous? This defendant must be really dangerous. Dangerous people are usually guilty." What We Know So Far: Two main criticisms: 1) Hurts jury selection process, 2) Makes jurors assume guilt What We Don't Know Yet: How defenders of anonymous juries respond to these criticisms Reading Strategy Insight: We now have the complete "critic's case" - expect the author to present responses or counterarguments next. |
| However, consistent with due process and the sixth amendment, the trial judge may refuse to ask prospective jurors any questions not reasonably calculated to expose biases or prejudices relevant to the case. |
What it says: But judges can legally refuse to let lawyers ask prospective jurors questions that aren't reasonably designed to find bias related to the specific case. What it does: Begins the counterargument to critics by establishing legal precedent Source/Type: Legal principle/court authority Connection to Previous Sentences: "However" signals a direct response to the critics' arguments from sentences 8-9. This challenges the critics' constitutional claims. Visualization: Critics say: "Anonymous juries violate constitutional rights!" Response: "Actually, judges already have constitutional authority to limit questioning" What We Know So Far: The constitutional objection may not be valid because judges can already limit jury questioning What We Don't Know Yet: How this applies specifically to the information lawyers lose in anonymous juries Reading Strategy Insight: Classic debate structure: criticism → response. The author is systematically addressing the opposition. |
| Although addresses and group affiliations may indicate significant potential for bias, attorneys do not have an unfettered right to this information in every circumstance. |
What it says: Even though knowing someone's address and group memberships might reveal important biases, lawyers don't have an unlimited right to this information in all cases. What it does: Acknowledges critics' point but limits its scope Source/Type: Legal principle with partial concession Connection to Previous Sentences: This continues the counterargument by addressing the specific information (addresses, affiliations) mentioned in sentence 4. The author is systematically responding to each criticism. Visualization: Critics: "We NEED addresses and group info to find bias!" Response: "That info CAN show bias, BUT lawyers don't have unlimited rights to it" What We Know So Far: Even potentially useful information can be legitimately withheld from lawyers What We Don't Know Yet: The final conclusion about whether anonymous juries are constitutional Reading Strategy Insight: The author is being balanced - acknowledging critics have a point while limiting their argument. |
| Denying access to these facts may indeed constrain an attorney's ability to assemble an ideal jury, but it violates no constitutional right. |
What it says: Not having access to juror information might make it harder for lawyers to pick perfect juries, but this doesn't violate the Constitution. What it does: Provides the final conclusion that anonymous juries are constitutional Source/Type: Author's/legal conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the culminating response to all the constitutional criticisms raised in sentences 6-9. The author is giving us the bottom line after walking through both sides. Visualization: Criticism: Constitutional violation! Final verdict: Inconvenient for lawyers ≠ Constitutional violation What We Know So Far: Complete argument: Anonymous juries may be imperfect but they're constitutionally permissible Reading Strategy Insight: Relief! This is the clear conclusion after a complex debate. The passage has come full circle from describing anonymous juries to resolving the controversy about them. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain the development of anonymous juries in American courts and settle the debate about whether they violate constitutional rights.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by walking us through the history and controversy surrounding anonymous juries:
- First, the author establishes that anonymous juries are a new development in American law, starting with organized crime cases in 1980s New York
- Next, the author explains how the practice expanded to high-profile cases and describes exactly how anonymous jury selection works
- Then, the author presents the main criticisms from opponents who argue that anonymous juries violate constitutional rights and hurt defendants
- Finally, the author responds to these criticisms by showing that judges already have legal authority to limit jury questioning and concludes that anonymous juries are constitutional
Main Point:
While anonymous juries may make it harder for lawyers to select ideal juries, they do not violate any constitutional rights and are a legally acceptable practice in American courts.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary purpose of the entire passage. We need to find the answer choice that best captures what the author is trying to accomplish across all paragraphs, not just one section.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we can see the author follows a clear structure:
- Historical context - anonymous juries are new (1980s origin)
- Expansion and mechanics - how they work and where they've spread
- Opposition arguments - critics claim constitutional violations
- Response and resolution - author addresses criticisms and reaches conclusion
The passage analysis shows this is fundamentally a debate about constitutional law, specifically whether anonymous juries violate the Sixth Amendment. The author systematically presents both sides before reaching a conclusion.
Prethinking:
Based on our analysis, the passage is primarily concerned with examining a legal/constitutional question. The author isn't just defining anonymous juries or listing reasons they're unconstitutional - instead, the author is walking through a scholarly debate and ultimately addressing whether there's a shortcoming in how critics approach this constitutional issue. The passage concludes that critics' constitutional objections are flawed because they misunderstand existing judicial authority.
Answer Choices Explained
A
Enumerate reasons why anonymous juries are unconstitutional
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage concludes that anonymous juries are constitutional, not unconstitutional
- The author presents reasons why critics think they're unconstitutional but then refutes these arguments
- The final conclusion states "it violates no constitutional right"
- Did you focus only on the middle section where critics' arguments are presented?
→ Read through to the conclusion where the author addresses and dismisses these constitutional concerns - Are you confusing what critics argue with what the author concludes?
→ Look for transition words like "However" that signal the author's response to critics
B
Discuss whether anonymous juries are an infringement of the sixth amendment
Why It's Wrong:
- While the passage does discuss Sixth Amendment concerns, this is too narrow
- The passage covers more than just the Sixth Amendment debate - it includes historical context, practical mechanics, and resolution
- This choice misses the broader purpose of examining and ultimately resolving the scholarly debate
- Are you focusing too heavily on the constitutional debate section?
→ Consider how the historical background and final resolution also contribute to the author's overall purpose - Does "discuss whether" accurately capture the author's definitive conclusion?
→ The author doesn't just discuss - they reach a clear resolution that anonymous juries are constitutional
C
Identify a shortcoming in a scholarly approach to jurisprudence
Why It's Right:
- The passage identifies critics' flawed constitutional arguments as a shortcoming in scholarly approach
- The author systematically shows how critics misunderstand existing judicial authority regarding jury questioning
- The passage demonstrates that critics' objections are based on an overly broad interpretation of constitutional rights
D
Define the concept of anonymous juries and explore efforts taken over the last twenty years to increase their use
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage is not primarily definitional - the definition of anonymous juries is covered quickly in early sentences
- There's no discussion of "efforts to increase their use" - the passage notes they remain unusual and are "typically only empanelled in organized-crime cases"
- The main focus is on the constitutional debate, not promoting expansion of anonymous juries
- Are you mistaking the brief historical overview for the main purpose?
→ The historical context serves to set up the constitutional debate, which is the real focus - Does the passage actually advocate for increasing use of anonymous juries?
→ No, it remains neutral on whether they should be used more, focusing instead on their constitutionality
E
Review strategies for ensuring that anonymous juries will not infringe on the constitutional right to a fair trial of one's peers
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't "review strategies" - it examines whether constitutional infringement exists at all
- The author concludes that anonymous juries don't infringe constitutional rights, so strategies to prevent infringement are unnecessary
- This choice assumes the constitutional problem exists, while the passage argues it doesn't
- Are you assuming the passage accepts critics' constitutional concerns as valid?
→ The passage actually refutes these concerns rather than offering ways to address them - Does the passage focus on prevention strategies or on disproving the need for them?
→ The author argues no constitutional violation occurs, making prevention strategies irrelevant
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More