Juries
In the Hands of the Jury?
Take the O.J Simpson case, for example. Forgetting about the verdict for a moment, think about the makeup of the jury: some White, some African American, and some young mothers with children, others older. Then, you had a White woman and an African-American (Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, respectively) trying the case on behalf of the State of California. Simpson countered with his team consisting of the late Johnny Cochran, Robert Kardashian, and Robert Shapiro, an African American and two middle-aged White men, among other lawyers. The judge was Lance Ito, an Asian-American who was his duty to make sure the trail did not get out of hand.
What is interesting is the makeup of both sides was balanced. It was not jaded on one side or another. That did not happen several decades ago, when an all-White male juries would routinely convict Black men of crimes, even if the evidence concluded otherwise (ask Ruben “Hurricane” Carter for starters).
Selecting 12 people to sit on a jury and decide another person’s fate sounds like more a television game show than reality. Asking 12 strangers to hold a person’s life in their hands when they are inexperienced in the areas of law and order (pardon the pun) is a tall task indeed. I would be more comfortable having a panel of judges determine my guilt or innocence than the latter.
Jury selection is usually an inexact science, basing the competence of a potential juror on a few minutes of questioning. Worse, everyone has preconceived notions heading into the case. Attorneys have the ardent task of figuring out if someone if capable of making a group decision without imposing their own beliefs.
Juries 2
Good Luck. Attorneys on both sides must decide if someone if fit for their side. Kind of like picking a team for a game of basketball: the best go first while the rest of the picks are chosen as the best of the rest. Why ask juries of one’s peers when they have little or no knowledge or interest?
Jury selection has a history of being exclusive—not what one hopes for in a fair and speedy trial.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case Carter v. Jury Commission (1970), the Black people of Greene County, Alabama were upset that their voice was not being heard. They were not being counted in the state census readings for one reason or another (discrimination would be one reason, the plaintiffs argued) and were not getting adequate representation in court for due
process. The litigants argued that they would not be given fair and speedy trials based on their race and color, characteristics that were outlawed a few years back through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court agreed, saying there must be a better way for the census to be updated and that all persons, regardless of their color, creed, nationality, etc., were to be included if they were of the correct age (18 or older). This would make it a better representation of a “jury of its peers.”
It also makes for a tainted jury pool that is not willing to listen before handing down a verdict. Black people were not considered equals until the 1960s, and even then, there were obvious signs of prejudice around. You are asking them to make a rational, informed choice based on the evidence presented? It will not work because the people involved have their own notions about a race, gender, etc., and will use that criterion in order to convict or acquit.
Juries 3
The issue of jury selection is not always Black or White either, as a 1975 Supreme Court case proved.
The case between Taylor v. Louisiana ultimately gave women the power to be selected for jury duty. Previous to this, women were not considered for jury service unless they provided the state with a written statement or petition indicating their interest and ability to serve as a jury member. Cases were decided by men in all case prior to this ruling, and with more than half the Louisiana population consisting of females, it made the judgment more relevant.
The Court, with an 8-1 majority for overturning the previous statute, said juries must be a cross-section of the community. Having one or more races excluded from the process does not fulfill that requirement. Justice Rehnquist provided the dissenting view.
OK, so if you were either a woman or a person of color, you were automatically disqualified for jury duty. This is a jury of one’s peers? Not! The system is flawed to only give those in power (often men) a chance to win their freedom. That is not the correct basis for due process. Even attorneys with the ability cross-examine jurors will find ways to exclude jurors based on their appearance. Due process is supposed to be fair, and this process is far from that when entire groups are banned from participating.
Now, let us return to the Simpson case. The jury rendered a “not guilty” verdict based on evidence presented. We hope. However, there were no other suspects, the alleged murder weapon, a knife, was never recovered, and the police investigation was presumably botched because of the celebrity involved. Simpson was a famous collegiate and pro football player, a commercial pitchman and actor. His defense lawyers were the tops in their field. How could the
Juries 4
His celebrity and surrounding media circus that emanated from the proceedings not do influence jury?
Celebrity may have swayed the Simpson jury. During cross-examination, Cochran asked the defendant to put on the glove in question. When Simpson could not put on the glove, Cochran famously said, “If the glove does not fit, then you must acquit.” How is a jury that may watch Court TV or cop shows going to react? Like they are supposed to have sympathy for the defendant. Cochran was doing his job to persuade the jury, but jury members were putting who was on trial ahead of the evidence—never a good sign.
Although Simpson got his due process, it is not always the case—and that can have a negative impact. Take the case of Cunningham v. California (2006), where a judge levied the maximum sentence on a defendant based on evidence that was not heard or considered by the jury. The defendant sought a more favorable ruling (given that he was convicted of molesting his son) and did not want to serve the maximum penalty.
The Supreme Court agreed that the judge in this case should have either instructed the jury to consider the evidence, in this case that there were extenuating circumstances that warranted the heavy sentence. Or, not presented the option of handing down a stiffer sentence.
The defendant won his appeal in that the judge’s negated his right to a jury trial decision to act outside the boundaries of this case.
A judge serves to uphold the law. If the evidence suggests that more (or less) time is warranted, then his or her discretion should be used to make that choice. That does not mean withholding evidence, because that would be wrong. Being able to collect the facts and provide a coherent verdict is paramount. Juries are not always correct, but they are not experts in this field, Juries 5 either. This is why experts are needed to make these difficult choices, not strangers.
It is hard for people in this day and age to be closed to meetings, news and other areas of
news. In a world of blogs, 24-hour news cycles, social networking and other forms of communications, there is little that would be considered private. That was not the case in 1986, when the highest court heard the case of Press-Enterprise Co v. Superior Court, in which the issue of free speech came into play.
The defendant wanted to wave his right to a jury trial and wanted his hearing closed to the public and transcripts not be made public. The newspaper disagreed, saying they have a right to the information through the First Amendment granting Free Speech.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the right of a defendant receiving a fair and impartial trail would not be hindered by the records of the preliminary hearing would injure his case. The majority said it would have to be a case in which the defendant would not be able to secure a fair jury trial for some reason. The court felt in this case that records were available to the public upon request before this case and that provided the press/media with a history of process.
The same result could be found in the case of Blakely v. Washington (2004), in which the defendant pled guilty to kidnapping his wife and would have been sentenced to more than four years in prison. However, the judge saw the case differently and sentenced the defendant to seven-and-half-years in jail.
The defendant appealed saying his sentence did not factor in the jury’s consideration. The judge argued that it was within his discretion to increase the sentence based on mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court sided with the defendant stating that the jury decides the fate of the defendant and not the judge.
Using the judicial system as a barometer to the world is a tricky proposition. It took decades before people or color, persons over 18 years old and women were even allowed to be considered to serve on a jury, let alone sit on one. Prior to that, a requisite was being White man and a land owner to be accepted. The world has evolved some since then, but that does not eliminate the inherent biases for or against law enforcement, lawyers, judges and those sworn to serve and protect.
This is why I feel that a panel of judges should make the decisions. Juries are not equipped to know the law and make rational judgments based on what they hear and see. They go for the glitz and glamour and care less about the facts and the mundane and trivial. Worse, some jurors may be looking at a trial as an opportunity to promote themselves. That is definitely not the reason to be on a jury.
It is said that no man is above the law. Juries were formed to hear all of the evidence on both sides and render a verdict. This would prevent a judge from playing judge, jury and executioner. Yes, judges are there for guidance and can direct juries to read information as they see fit. They are not there to hand out the decision and punishment, if applicable.
In the end, it should be left to those who have a degree and knowledge of the law instead of someone looking to get them out of jury duty to serve.
That is why Lady Liberty covers her eyes—because justice is blind.
Take the O.J Simpson case, for example. Forgetting about the verdict for a moment, think about the makeup of the jury: some White, some African American, and some young mothers with children, others older. Then, you had a White woman and an African-American (Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, respectively) trying the case on behalf of the State of California. Simpson countered with his team consisting of the late Johnny Cochran, Robert Kardashian, and Robert Shapiro, an African American and two middle-aged White men, among other lawyers. The judge was Lance Ito, an Asian-American who was his duty to make sure the trail did not get out of hand.
What is interesting is the makeup of both sides was balanced. It was not jaded on one side or another. That did not happen several decades ago, when an all-White male juries would routinely convict Black men of crimes, even if the evidence concluded otherwise (ask Ruben “Hurricane” Carter for starters).
Selecting 12 people to sit on a jury and decide another person’s fate sounds like more a television game show than reality. Asking 12 strangers to hold a person’s life in their hands when they are inexperienced in the areas of law and order (pardon the pun) is a tall task indeed. I would be more comfortable having a panel of judges determine my guilt or innocence than the latter.
Jury selection is usually an inexact science, basing the competence of a potential juror on a few minutes of questioning. Worse, everyone has preconceived notions heading into the case. Attorneys have the ardent task of figuring out if someone if capable of making a group decision without imposing their own beliefs.
Juries 2
Good Luck. Attorneys on both sides must decide if someone if fit for their side. Kind of like picking a team for a game of basketball: the best go first while the rest of the picks are chosen as the best of the rest. Why ask juries of one’s peers when they have little or no knowledge or interest?
Jury selection has a history of being exclusive—not what one hopes for in a fair and speedy trial.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case Carter v. Jury Commission (1970), the Black people of Greene County, Alabama were upset that their voice was not being heard. They were not being counted in the state census readings for one reason or another (discrimination would be one reason, the plaintiffs argued) and were not getting adequate representation in court for due
process. The litigants argued that they would not be given fair and speedy trials based on their race and color, characteristics that were outlawed a few years back through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court agreed, saying there must be a better way for the census to be updated and that all persons, regardless of their color, creed, nationality, etc., were to be included if they were of the correct age (18 or older). This would make it a better representation of a “jury of its peers.”
It also makes for a tainted jury pool that is not willing to listen before handing down a verdict. Black people were not considered equals until the 1960s, and even then, there were obvious signs of prejudice around. You are asking them to make a rational, informed choice based on the evidence presented? It will not work because the people involved have their own notions about a race, gender, etc., and will use that criterion in order to convict or acquit.
Juries 3
The issue of jury selection is not always Black or White either, as a 1975 Supreme Court case proved.
The case between Taylor v. Louisiana ultimately gave women the power to be selected for jury duty. Previous to this, women were not considered for jury service unless they provided the state with a written statement or petition indicating their interest and ability to serve as a jury member. Cases were decided by men in all case prior to this ruling, and with more than half the Louisiana population consisting of females, it made the judgment more relevant.
The Court, with an 8-1 majority for overturning the previous statute, said juries must be a cross-section of the community. Having one or more races excluded from the process does not fulfill that requirement. Justice Rehnquist provided the dissenting view.
OK, so if you were either a woman or a person of color, you were automatically disqualified for jury duty. This is a jury of one’s peers? Not! The system is flawed to only give those in power (often men) a chance to win their freedom. That is not the correct basis for due process. Even attorneys with the ability cross-examine jurors will find ways to exclude jurors based on their appearance. Due process is supposed to be fair, and this process is far from that when entire groups are banned from participating.
Now, let us return to the Simpson case. The jury rendered a “not guilty” verdict based on evidence presented. We hope. However, there were no other suspects, the alleged murder weapon, a knife, was never recovered, and the police investigation was presumably botched because of the celebrity involved. Simpson was a famous collegiate and pro football player, a commercial pitchman and actor. His defense lawyers were the tops in their field. How could the
Juries 4
His celebrity and surrounding media circus that emanated from the proceedings not do influence jury?
Celebrity may have swayed the Simpson jury. During cross-examination, Cochran asked the defendant to put on the glove in question. When Simpson could not put on the glove, Cochran famously said, “If the glove does not fit, then you must acquit.” How is a jury that may watch Court TV or cop shows going to react? Like they are supposed to have sympathy for the defendant. Cochran was doing his job to persuade the jury, but jury members were putting who was on trial ahead of the evidence—never a good sign.
Although Simpson got his due process, it is not always the case—and that can have a negative impact. Take the case of Cunningham v. California (2006), where a judge levied the maximum sentence on a defendant based on evidence that was not heard or considered by the jury. The defendant sought a more favorable ruling (given that he was convicted of molesting his son) and did not want to serve the maximum penalty.
The Supreme Court agreed that the judge in this case should have either instructed the jury to consider the evidence, in this case that there were extenuating circumstances that warranted the heavy sentence. Or, not presented the option of handing down a stiffer sentence.
The defendant won his appeal in that the judge’s negated his right to a jury trial decision to act outside the boundaries of this case.
A judge serves to uphold the law. If the evidence suggests that more (or less) time is warranted, then his or her discretion should be used to make that choice. That does not mean withholding evidence, because that would be wrong. Being able to collect the facts and provide a coherent verdict is paramount. Juries are not always correct, but they are not experts in this field, Juries 5 either. This is why experts are needed to make these difficult choices, not strangers.
It is hard for people in this day and age to be closed to meetings, news and other areas of
news. In a world of blogs, 24-hour news cycles, social networking and other forms of communications, there is little that would be considered private. That was not the case in 1986, when the highest court heard the case of Press-Enterprise Co v. Superior Court, in which the issue of free speech came into play.
The defendant wanted to wave his right to a jury trial and wanted his hearing closed to the public and transcripts not be made public. The newspaper disagreed, saying they have a right to the information through the First Amendment granting Free Speech.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the right of a defendant receiving a fair and impartial trail would not be hindered by the records of the preliminary hearing would injure his case. The majority said it would have to be a case in which the defendant would not be able to secure a fair jury trial for some reason. The court felt in this case that records were available to the public upon request before this case and that provided the press/media with a history of process.
The same result could be found in the case of Blakely v. Washington (2004), in which the defendant pled guilty to kidnapping his wife and would have been sentenced to more than four years in prison. However, the judge saw the case differently and sentenced the defendant to seven-and-half-years in jail.
The defendant appealed saying his sentence did not factor in the jury’s consideration. The judge argued that it was within his discretion to increase the sentence based on mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court sided with the defendant stating that the jury decides the fate of the defendant and not the judge.
Using the judicial system as a barometer to the world is a tricky proposition. It took decades before people or color, persons over 18 years old and women were even allowed to be considered to serve on a jury, let alone sit on one. Prior to that, a requisite was being White man and a land owner to be accepted. The world has evolved some since then, but that does not eliminate the inherent biases for or against law enforcement, lawyers, judges and those sworn to serve and protect.
This is why I feel that a panel of judges should make the decisions. Juries are not equipped to know the law and make rational judgments based on what they hear and see. They go for the glitz and glamour and care less about the facts and the mundane and trivial. Worse, some jurors may be looking at a trial as an opportunity to promote themselves. That is definitely not the reason to be on a jury.
It is said that no man is above the law. Juries were formed to hear all of the evidence on both sides and render a verdict. This would prevent a judge from playing judge, jury and executioner. Yes, judges are there for guidance and can direct juries to read information as they see fit. They are not there to hand out the decision and punishment, if applicable.
In the end, it should be left to those who have a degree and knowledge of the law instead of someone looking to get them out of jury duty to serve.
That is why Lady Liberty covers her eyes—because justice is blind.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment