What I would do is tape trials. This way all the legal procedure is followed. Then later it is shown back to a jury. If a lawyer makes an objection and it’s sustained, that part would be cut out of what is shown to the jury.
This way only what is relevant gets shown to the jury. Seeing something on tape will also remove the emotional element.
I also agree jurors should be allowed to ask questions not raised. You cannot base an informed choice if one of the lawyers simply doesn’t care or is too dumb to ask proper questions.
Also do not make it known to a jury what the final judgment may or may not be. A juror may be swayed if he thinks the end result may result in a death sentence.
Let’s face it guilty people are still gonna get off and innocent people will get convicted
I’m not sure what you want me to cite. For the proposition of further defining reasonable doubt, I could show you the S. Ct. holding on what to do if the jury is confused about reasonable doubt. The rest of course about what prosecutors want and 11v1 idiots or not of course is opinion.
Your case just plain sounds weird to me, didn’t the relationship between you and the police officer come out during voir dire? And prosecutors who will not appeal to juror’s emotions and instead appeal to their intelligence–sounds strange to me. But there is always the exception to the rule. of course in saying this I am not trying to prove anything, and its just my opinion.
But I will go refresh my memory on that S.Ct. ruling anyway even if that is not what you want cited.
An American jury is no different than a committee that has been assigned the task of arriving at
a unanimous decision. Many behavioral studies have shown that such a committee isn’t optimal in reaching the ‘correct’ solution to a problem.
In committees, a natural pecking order is formed. And the opinions of each member of the committee eventually converge to those of the highest individuals in that pecking order. And what makes it worse is that no one even knows it. So while everyone believes that a unanimous decision was reached via independent individual opinions, this is rarely the case. James Surowiecki does a much better job of describing the interactions involved in the committee process in The Wisdom of Crowds. I recommend reading it, since I haven’t done it justice.
But here are the major things I would change:
Don’t let the jurors interact with each other at all. In fact, don’t even let them see each other.
Get rid of the jury selection process completely. Select them randomly from the pool and increase the number to at least 30. Let them submit questions if needed, but anonymously for all to hear.
Obviously don’t require a unanimous decision. Only require a 60 percent to 2/3 decision to arrive at a verdict.
Why are jurors forbidden to take notes; what’s the justification? Try to follow a debate that lasts for days and catch someone contradicting what they said last week without notes.
I also agree with the complaints about juror sequestering and voir dire, and in general any practice based on presuming that jurors are imbeciles that have to be “managed”.
ETA: oh, and while not strictly a matter of jurors, I would add the possible verdict of “not proven”, which would not permanently exonerate the defendent. A “not guilty” verdict would give protection against civil liability.
In addition to the issues with juries, IMHO I would eliminate both counsel’s opening and closing arguments.
When I have been a juror, I have been instructed that I should only consider the evidence presented, and that anything said by either counsel is not evidence. Logically, since the counsel’s statements are not evidence, they might as well be the sound of water dripping, or a door squeaking, yah?
Not to entirely disagree with you, but it really depends on the court. Our county court pays out $40 a day if you are selected to serve.
Also, while I agree with the sentiment, we’re having enough problems funding schools, police, and roads. It’s tough for any local city council, county board, or state legislature to pass tax increases to fund jury pay over any of those.
You are correct on item 4, that juries are not generally informed of penalties.
But since they do not ask during voir dire for shoplifting whether you can implement the death penalty, this is one area where its a sorta dead giveaway.
This is another area of voir dire I’d eliminate. Not only does it give away penalties it skews the jury toward death penalty supporters rather than a fair cross section of the community.
As has already been pointed out, notes are allowed in many, if not most courts. They were allowed in the Casey Anthony trial, for example. But jurors are not allowed to share or compare notes, or even discuss the trial, before the deliberation begins. Also, the notes are all destroyed at the conclusion of the trial.
I think there’s a virtue to both sides setting out their cases before starting, and summing up once testimony is over. A lot of information is given out during a trial, and opening/closing arguments provide some needed form. Moreover, if the prosecution has to explain what it plans to prove, the defense has the opportunity to call “bullshit” at the end; taking away the opening & closing statements would prevent that.
I would reduce the unanimity requirement and require 11/12 votes for a verdict. This would strongly reduce jury nullification and hung juries. It would also allow a hold out juror to vote their conscience rather than have them steamrolled into agreeing with the majority just so that all the jurors can all go home.
Finally I don’t see that this is any more likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice than the current system. It was just luck that that hold out juror was chosen for the pool. It that juror was replaced by another random person, chances are the verdict would go through.
There is not a unanimity requirement under the Constitution, according to the S.Ct. though there is in some jurisdictions. Your state is free to drop a unanimity requirement.
My company didn’t pay for jury duty (the court pay was really low, like $20 a day plus milegage & free parking). I’ve heard stories of other Dopers with salaried jobs being expected to do work from home after court adjourned for the day.
We were allowed (& encourgaged) to take notes. We had to use notebooks provided by the court (that were labelled with each of our names) and leave them on our seats in the courtroom whenever we sent out or court adjourned. They were destroyed after the trial. I only had to complaints (other than the low pay).
I was an alternate (actually the 2nd alternate) so I spent the entire trial thinking "I'm probally not even goint to get to deliberate" in the back of my mind. I think it would've been better to just have 14 people on the jury with no predesignated alternates and have the judge or a clerk pick 2 numbered balls out of one of those metal spinny basket things before sending the remaining 12 jurors into the jury room. I understand some jurisidictions do do that.
Also I found it really annoying that everone else in the court (well except the audience) got a jug of ice water & paper cups put in front of them while we the jury weren’t even allowed to bring water bottles. :mad: I actually started getting distracted from testimony watching the judge or one of the lawyers or a clerk pouring themselves water.