Importance of the jury process - no homework answers here...

[TubaRay]

bloke "I believe the primary purpose of the jury system is for the whores-of-the-legal-system defense lawyers to try to hand-pick the most stupid, ignorant, and gullible softies they can to put on the juries."

I guess you're our proof that they aren't perfect.

[Chuck(G)]

Joe, the US Constitution says that those folks are your "peers".

[TubaRay]

Joe, the US Constitution says that those folks are your "peers".

Or pee-ers!

[DonShirer]

Bloke, when I see some of the awards handed down by juries nowadays, I sympathize with your viewpoint. However, I had a chance to serve on a jury recently, and was impressed by the seriousness and dedication of my fellow panelists, regardless of their background.

Perhaps a jury trial is like the fabled description of a democracy. It is the worst possible system, except for all the others.

[Ricko]

Sounds like another good reason to get out of Memphis as fast as you can.

[windshieldbug]

(obviously guilty, but hung jury)

Why were you looking at them that closely below the belt?

[MartyNeilan]

(obviously guilty, but hung jury)

Why were you looking at them that closely below the belt?

I bang me gavel!
http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/ ... udges.html

[iiipopes]

Bullshit. "Peer" is a technical word. It is the descriptive term for a member of the English House of Lords. The Magna Carta did not give the common man a jury. Later parliaments and legislatures did that. To be guaranteed "a jury of Peers" as the earls and barons under threat of the sword made King John seal the document (not sign it, meaning he only gave it legitimacy, and did not actually approve it) originally meant that a Member of the House of Lords could only be tried and punishment imposed by a jury of those of equal stature, namely other members, and not by anyone lower in society who might have a grudge, and not only by a monarch, who might equally have a grudge. Magna Carta clause 21 (and clauses 55 and 61, later omitted from subsequent copies, which set forth the process of determining a panel of 25 barons to set things straight). The rest of the judicial clauses, 17 through 24, address other related aspects of the judicial system, such as holding court in a permanent single place and not letting sheriffs be judges in serious cases, for example.

A parallel confused concept is that of the grand jury hearing evidence for indictment of felonies, also originating in the middle ages, which later developed into the dual system, which we still have, which is having both the grand jury for indictment and the trial jury to hear the rest of the case. So it is from that history it developed its meaning to have a jury of people as disinterested (not uninterested, but disinterested) and impartial as possible so they will hear the whole case, and not be influenced by having members of the trial jury that were also members of the grand jury. Milson, Historical foundations of the Common Law 2d Ed, Part IV, Butterworths, 1981.

In 1976 I viewed one of the original copies of the Magna Carta in its glass case as it was on display on loan from the UK in Washington. It is still very legible, despite the paper having darkened to a very dark grey with age. I have watched trials at the Old Bailey in London; I have walked on Runymede plain where the Magna Carta was presented and sealed. I have clerked to a barrister arguing a case in the House of Lords and taken dinner in the members' dining hall at the Houses of Parliament. I have watched my uncle present a case in the US Supreme Court, and taken dinner in the Court dining hall. I've appeared in almost every county of the state where I live. I have the benefit of anecdotes from several generations of family for how the local judicial system has evolved over at least the past 100 years, if not more. I've tried more jury trials than most lawyers ever see, most of them in criminal cases, and from both sides of the table. It stressed the hell out of me. That's the main reason I don't do them anymore, and may never go back to it. From my personal experience I can attest that at least both in England and here in the Midwest, where folks still have common sense, all the panels of people I ever watched or stood in front of took their civic duty very seriously, and were very concerned about doing the right thing according to the law instructed applied to the evidence presented.

Yes, the jury system has its faults. And it is a bad system until you compare it to all the others which had come before it, namely trial by ordeal, where, depending on where you were, a defendant was dunked until he looked like he'd drown, for if he floated the "pure" water was obviously rejecting a guilty man, or made him endure hot coals, and if it healed too quickly his body was obviously hiding a guilty conscience, etc. And because you do get to tell your side of the story, as a good friend of mine who is an investigator has said, if ever caught in a bad predicament, "I'd rather be tried by twelve than be buried by six."

Finally, as far as picking a jury. The lawyers don't get to pick a jury. The clerk or sheriff notifies the panel of eligible jurors from the county, who then report to court. Then the lawyers get to ask them questions, either written supervised by the judge, or verbal in open court, or sometimes both, to see if any of them have any predisposed biases or other circumstances that would prevent them from hearing the whole case and being impartial. It's called voir dire, a latin phrase meaning to speak the truth. Then all the lawyers get to do is convince the judge that certain people are not unbiased, and if the judge agrees, they are excused. This is called "strikes for cause." I've actually seen both plaintiffs lawyers in civil cases and prosecutors in criminal cases dismiss cases before the jury was seated because they didn't get their strikes, and chose to start all over from scratch rather than risk the panel imposed upon them. It is also that way in Memphis, which I know first hand from having worked with Tennessee lawyers on cases here and there, and from another uncle who used to practice in Memphis and is sure he knew, from having lived and practiced there during the relevant period of time, who the "real" firms and sources were for the John Grisham novels, but would never tell me. No, lawyers do not "pick" juries. A jury is picked for them, and the best they can do is weed out a few really biased individuals through appropriate voir dire and argument to the judge.

And now for something completely different:

There once was a man named Gus
Who flashed himself on the bus
When hauled into court
The judge did retort
Non curat lex esto de minimus.

(Latin translation: the law will not concern itself with small or trivial things!)

[windshieldbug]

Latin translation: the law will not concern itself with small or trivial things!

Doesn't sound like a "hung jury" to me!

[tofu]

I think the problem with the jury based system today is the pool of jurors that is put together is not really a cross section of the public. Face it, we all know folks who will do anything to avoid it and even when called know that if they say certain things they will get striked.

Most folks can't afford to get stuck on a trial for 2 weeks much less six months. Most workers and especially anybody who works on commission is taking a big financial hit based on what jurors get payed in my area.

So you are left with the unemployed and old people on jurys. While I was in undergrad school I clerked and in complicated cases you could see the eyes of jurors glaze over as the lawyers waded through difficult & complex issues. I remember one case on a 95 degree day just after lunch in our old county courthouse (built in the 1890's) we were in one of those all oak second floor rooms with 20 foot ceilings, no fans and the window air conditioner quit.
The two lawyers spent all afternoon arguing about how corn grew. The judge (now on the federal bench) and myself made a pact of poking the other whenever we started to fall asleep. I'll never forget how hard it was to stay awake.

[tubatooter1940]

I served twice and found no fault with the jurors I worked with. They seemed sincere and worked hard to do right.
However the overloaded system lets a lot of crap prevail as harried judges rush to judgement and liars dominate with impunity.

[iiipopes]

OK, let's put it a different way:
The system is run by people.
People are not perfect, so mistakes will be made. (I know, no, duh, but bear with me...)
Knowing that mistakes will be made, do you want to structure the governmental/judicial system so that if and when a mistake is made, it is:
1) on the criminal side, one that tends to occasionally let a guilty person go free, or put an innocent person in jail (and I know both happen, just think about the tendency you would rather have, keeping an image of the Bill of Rights in your minds as you consider this one), and
2) on the civil side, one that tends to overpay compensation occasionally, or tends to shut out injured people (again, yes, both happen, just think about the inscription on the Statue of Liberty as you think about this one).

The present administration, excepted, of course.

All systems can use improvement. Just as the Constitution has its mechanism for amendment when necessary, I agree there are certain places and certain courts that may need some help. But it is the type of help that is needed in that particular place, whether the manner of choosing the panel, the provision for sufficient judges and courtrooms to hear all the cases, or even the tempering of lawyers who get too far afield (and remember that if a lawyer presents an argument that seems off the wall, he or she is by law obligated to put forth the best case possible, especially in a criminal defense case, even if the best case is nothing but a slinging of it into the air to see what sticks). That should be the focus, not the system itself, as it is still the best system God has ever allowed people to come up with. And yes, it takes time, as all good things do.

Or, we could have a system like the former Iraq and have people blinded by poison gas and the opposition's bodies mutilated in shallow graves, as has been in the news recently. Your choice. Now go vote for the one you want at the next general election. I've been trained to work with the system regardless. So the rest of you make your choice. And don't bitch if you don't vote. If you vote, I'll be happy to be the whipping/sounding board 24/7 to hear all you want to vent about, then help you structure it to bitch to your elected officials about it in a way to help get it changed for the better.

[tubatooter1940]

I don't know, man. There are a couple bodies I wouldn't mind seeing in shallow graves.