JURY SYSTEMS

The Anglo-American notion of "a jury of one's peers" has many drawbacks. But -- like the notion of democracy itself -- it seems to be the best system so far devised by the human mind. The fact that few, if any, jurors in the Ken Lay trial were high-ranking business executives demostrates why the system is fair. Persons who were as high up in the business world as Lay would also have been prone to be unduly sympathetic to the defendant. This is why a defense attorney in a child molestation case would be leery of having a number of doting parents on a jury trying his/her client. The reactions of such people to testimony would be likely to be emotional rresponses rather than cold, reasoned judgements.

Like anything else in a working democracy, a jury is efficacious only if all members are well-informed, unbiased and reasonable. The same is true of the electorate: the people we elect reflects the level of concern and education of the people who elect them.

Slightly off-topic, but this has been mentioned by a previous poster. In the OJ Simpson case, I don't think the "not guilty" verdict was a reflection of any particular anti-police bias on the part of the jurors. Rather, the LAPD officers who testified shot themselves and the prosecution right in the foot with their testimony which indicated a deep-seated racial bias. The verdict was fair and reasoned. Simpson may (or may not) have been the killer but the whole point is that the prosecution failed to demonstrate this "beyond a reasonable doubt."

We don't have juries - learnt from our history, besides other reasons.

We have lay judges, though: Court system Germany

Merry said: "Like anything else in a working democracy, a jury is efficacious only if all members are well-informed, unbiased and reasonable. The same is true of the electorate: the people we elect reflects the level of concern and education of the people who elect them."

As you probably know, well-informed people are usually eliminated in voir dire. A well-informed person would certainly know a lot about well-publicized cases, and such person would normally be eliminated as a juror.

I keep hearing that our jury system provides justice. But a jury of ignorant (not unintelligent) people don't provide this.

Walter, thanks for the good information on the German system. I think that this would be superior to ours.

Anyone can be called to jury duty and with most areas now holding "one day/one trial" system - there is little that the judge allows for people to get out of serving. For example, once went I served one wealthy man tried to get out of saying "I own a business - do you know how much money I will lose." And the judge basically said tough tootsies.

I think as fair as saying a jury of your peers does not necessarily mean you have a jury of people exactly like you. That defeats the purposes of the thought process that a jury needs to be impartial. It means more along the lines of every day people - not those involved in the court system. People in the court system have developed biased. Perhaps it is true that some one of a certain age, ethnic background, education level, income level, etc. tends to be involved in crime more often than say another sort of person and people working in the court systems see this - they have a ingrained bias set up there whether they want it or not. So if you have a panel of 12 people who all they do because of their knowledge, experience, etc. determine the fate of an individual. They have some one who fits the typical profile they have seen perhaps even has a record, heck they probably have seen this person over and over - will this person get a fair unbiased ruling? Maybe this is the one crime this person did not do.

A jury is typically not full of ignorant people. I served on several - typically there is a mix of different people. On a murder trial I served - most were college graduates, one was still going to college, one just finished. There was a supermarket manager. There was a marketing executive. There was a businessman and there was an elderly woman, along with several other people in between. This works as you get a variety of expertise. Also, it is up to the court to bring up experts that can explain things - so called expert witnesses - both sides can call up these types of witnesses. These witnesses then explain how the evidence works and relates and why it proves guilt or not. In addition, the judge gives specific instructions how you determine guilt or innocence. No one in the three court cases I have served on seemed confused (expert the two idiots on one trial) by these instructions - if there was something confusing for a couple of people, there were others that had a degree of knowledge enough to work it out with them.

If ignorant jurors should not be entrusted with justice, why should ignorant voters be entrusted with democracy? Certainly, the same arguments that can be made in the former case can be made in the latter. So why should we have professional jurors but not professional voters?

I would also point out that such contentions assume that judges and lawyers, as well as politicians, are not ignorant, or vary significantly in degree of ignorance from those who would be despised as jurors or voters. If a pharmacologist were called for jury duty, is it reasonable to automatically assume that the judge and the prosecutorial team are less ignorant in a case alledging murder by poisoning than said pharmacologist?

I've seen a judge who didn't know the meaning of the word gerontology, and when said judge asked the prosecutor, the prosecutor had to turn to the public defender, who stated that she believed it meant "old people." Somehow, i find the entire idea that one can automatically assume that jurors (or voters) are significant more ignorant that judges and lawyers (or politicians) is more than a little laughably absurd.

As for MA's remarks about the OJ verdict, it is worth noting that in Scotland, a jury can return a verdict of "not proven"--which one might allege ought to have been done in the OJ case.

Main Entry: 1peer
Pronunciation: 'pir
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French per, from per, adjective, equal, from Latin par
1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
2 archaic : COMPANION
3 a : a member of one of the five ranks (as duke, marquess, earl, viscount, or baron) of the British peerage b : NOBLE 1
- peer adjective
--Merriam-Webster

Rules and jury makeups vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is anecdotal to point to your jury experience.

Voting is something else. Everyone has an ownership interest in the country and must be allowed to vote.

Juries can be very biased. In DC, it is sometimes difficult to convict a black person because the juries, almost all black, feel that there are too many jailed black males.

I think that most lawyers will tell you that a client with the facts and law on his or her side should go for a nonjury trial. Otherwise, go for a jury trial. This is not a fair trial or justice.

As I stated I was referring to the intention of a jury of your peers - not the textbook definition of what a peer is.

I also never said that all juries are unbiased. However, the selection process of juries minimizes the However, if you have a panel where each member is experiencing the same thing daily, there is definite bias. I go for the minimizing rather than the definite.opportunity for bias. You cannot completely eliminate bias.

Washington DC has very extreme makeup in demographics - believe me I have done research on this - another area for extremes is Utah. It is anecdotal to point to one extreme location.

Rules do vary among jurisdictions, however, all jurisdictions allow both prosecution and defense to object to a potential jury if this person is a person of bias, for example in a rape trial - a juror who has been a victim of rape.

oting affects everyone because everyone has ownership interest in the country. Well I would have to imagine that everyone would have an interest on whether a murder walked the streets or not.

Odd - what you say about lawyers that tell a client to go for a jury trial - most cases are settled without a jury, most plead guilty in the hopes that the judge will be more lenient if they fess up. Not sure where your facts come from.

We are talking about cases in which a jury is selected, not ones in which there was a plea or a settlement (in a civil case).

A single jury is anecdotal, not an entire, large, jurisdiction.

Actually, i was not referring to my jury experience. The point of my anecdote, however, which apparently breezed right over Advocate's head, is that one cannot reliably assert that judges and lawyers are reliably less ignorant than the members of juries. Juries are charged with making findings of fact, and they do so on exactly the same basis as a judge would do if acting in a case tried without a jury--which is to say, the relative weight given to testimony and evidence, whether or not the testimony can be asserted to have been expert.

There is not good reason to assume that a judge is any better qualified to judge the value of evidence and testimony in a finding of fact than an empaneled jury. The suggestion to the contrary is nothing more than elitist conceit.

Actually the fact there is a jury available is what causes many individuals to decide to either plea bargain or chose a judge (nonjury trial). A group of 12 individuals ends up being very intimidating.

Link and Dart did talk about juries they served on.

In reaching a verdict, a jury determines facts and (is supposed to) apply the law as per instructions.

Sadly, there are many, many, cases in which the jury was out to lunch. I remember a case in DC in which a young man broke into a building at the Geo. Washington U., raping a coed in a vacant auditorium. The jury agreed with him that the sex was consensual. The judged was so ticked that he scolded the jury afterwards. The acquittal, of course, stood.

That's debatable. But doesn't everybody have as much of an interest in the justice system as they do in the political system?


Most lawyers haven't told me that, and I've talked to a lot of lawyers.

Joe, if you were a lawyer with a great case, you would be providing your client a disservice with such advice. You may even be liable for malpractice.

Here is a good article from the UK, from which we adopted our own jury system. I think that many of the horror stories related are all too familiar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4382616-103677,00.html

From the Guardian article that Advocate linked:


I'd venture to guess that only about 1% of criminal cases in the US culminate in trial by jury as well. Most of the rest are disposed of by plea agreements, dismissals, or by being dropped by the prosecution. That doesn't mean that the jury system doesn't work. In fact, it doesn't say much at all about the jury system.


That assertion is so completely misleading that it calls into question the author's objectivity (and he's a judge, so he should know better). First of all, magistrate's courts in the UK only handle minor offenses (maximum sentence of six months imprisonment or £5000 fine). Defendants are much more likely to risk a trial when the consequences are not terribly severe. On the other hand, it is much more likely that a defendant in crown court will risk trial if he is actually innocent, or if he has a good chance of being found not guilty. Consequently, it is to be expected that many more defendants in magistrate's courts will stand trial -- and be found guilty -- than defendants in crown courts who are charged with much more serious crimes.

Secondly, although there are no juries in magistrate's courts, in most cases there are three magistrates who are "lay" persons - in other words, they are not professional judges nor are they lawyers, but, like the jury, they are persons from the local community. To suggest, then, that juries are more lenient than judges ignores the fact that verdicts in both the crown courts and the magistrate's courts are rendered by laymen, not by professional jurists.

Many people settle because they know that a jury trial is essentially a casino -- anything can happen. BTW, the lay judges are professional jurists -- that is their occupation. We have lay judges in the USA, and, in their zeal to close cases, become very pro-prosecution.

You may have heard the saying, which is true, that, with respect to a grand jury, a prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted.

Yes - and a judge can also be horrible - in one case particular case, in Boston a judge overturn the jury's decision and let some terrible criminal go free. It was a huge media nightmare for her as her decision was obviously wrong.

But again in site one example - I did state my example of jury service (also noted that this is just a few situations), but you can use your one example of this and one example of Washington DC (which is an abnormality in demographics) but that proves your whole premise.

If I had a great case, I would not hesitate to advise my client to try the case in front of a jury. And that advice would most assuredly not be grounds for a claim of legal malpractice. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, Advocate.