JURY

1
JURY

• What are the historical antecedents of the
  contemporary jury system?
• What are the underlying values of our
  contemporary jury system and how does this system
  function?
• What will the trial of the future look like?

2
Jury in an historical and cultural context

• The jury is a modern institution
• Its antecedents are in medieval, European
  practices---Ordeal
• Ordeal was a primitive form of trial used to
  determine guilt or innocence of accused
• Based on belief that divine intervention would
  prevail on behalf of the innocent

3
Jury (cont.)

• Ordeal as a social and legal process was
  consistent with the belief systems of the people
  of the time
• Judicial process which requests intervention from
  God to relieve people of responsibility for
  making decisions

4
Trial by jury

• Represents a belief in human rationality
• Earliest juries were used to secure political
  power of monarchy-used by Henry II in 12th
  century to extend authority
• Those juries made accusations on behalf of
  King-used to make good faith accusations and once
  accusations made, Ordeal used to determine guilt

• Not accepted by citizens until 13th century

5
Trial by Jury

• Constitutional basis, Article III, 6th and 7th
  Amendments

6
definitions

• Petit or trial jury is charged with determining
  the facts and applying the law in a particular
  case-consists of 6 or 12 citizens
• Grand jury decides whether prosecutor has
  sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment

7
Duncan v. Lousiana(1968)

• Defendant convicted of misdemeanor simple battery
• No jury trial-convicted-appeal based on denial of
  right to jury trial-violating 6th and 14th
  amendment.
• Court held that because right to jury trial is a
  fundamental right, states are required to
  guarantee it in all criminal cases-not petty
  offenses
• Court recounts history of jury trials as critical
  to the protection against arbitrary rule

8
Batson v. Kentucky 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986)

• Petitioner claimed denied equal protection (6th
  and 14th amendment) of the law through States
  use of peremptory challenges to exclude members
  of his race from jury
• Previous cases held that jury venire (pool)
  requires a cross-section of community but petit
  jury itself did not

• Ct held here that Equal Protection Claude forbids
  prosecutors to challenge jurors solely on account
  of their race
• Burden is on defendant to show that there is
  purposeful discrimination by prosecutor
• Marshall concurs-peremptory challenges should be
  abolished

9
Trial of the Future

• Will science, technology and other mechanisms for
  determining the truth replace our jury system?
• What evidence do we have that supports or refutes
  this proposition?

10
Trial of the Future

• Technologies are available that may be better
  determiners of truth
• Existing technologies include finger printing,
  lie detectors (polygraphs,) drugs such as truth
  serums (sodium pentathol)
• Law has been reluctant to use these
  technologies
• Emergence of DNA evidence

11
People v. Collins

• Conviction for robbery based on introduction of
  statistical evidence by mathematician
• Appeal based on impropriety of this kind of
  evidence
• statistical evidence was incorrect and obscured
  role of jury
• Can human rationality withstand this evidence?

12
Jury as a Political Institution

• Jury functions more than simply as fact-finding
  body
• Injects community evaluation of acts of alleged
  wrongdoing
• Jury can offer protection from government
  oppression
• Ambiguity in jury-both extends power of state
  through formal law and is vehicle for popular
  participation
• Jury nullification-right to ignore the law as
  matter of conscience

13
DeTocqueville

• The jury system is as direct and as extreme a
  consequence of the sovereignty of the people as
  universal suffrage
• Means of education of the people

14
Jury Nullification The Right to Say No

• Jurors have the inherent right to set aside the
  instructions of the judge and to reach a verdict
  of acquittal based on their own consciences
• Debate over whether the defendant has the right
  to have the jury so instructed