Challenge: How would you reform the American jury system, if at all?

[gonzomax]

Apparently viewers on Tv and Nancy Grace followers are able to make wiser decisions than people spending all their time in a courtroom focusing on nothing but the case. Therefore we should run the trial on TV and have viewers vote for guilty or innocent. At least 25 percent of the vote share should belong to Grace and other HLN talking heads. Then we will be better off.

[gonzomax]

Of course there are some Duke Lacrosse players who would not be happy with that. But when you make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

[Tamerlane]

It’s interesting just how much variability there is from venue to venue.

@alphaboi867

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 served in a seven and a half week ( including ~three days of deliberation ) federal trial and we were allowed to keep our notes afterwards, though few bothered.

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.

Yep. No shiny balls, but we weren’t told who were the alternates until after the closing statements. Indeed one person was flabbergated she wasn’t an alternate, as she had been the last seated. They originally wanted 16, took 15 ( took all day to get down to 15 and I guess they didn’t want to continue into another day just for one more body ), kicked one off halfway through the trial because he kept nodding off and ended up excusing two as alternates.

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:

We were also allowed to bring refreshments into the courtroom :D. I always had a bottle of water available.

Frankly my experience was pretty positive and I was reasonably satisfied with the process. Very good cross-section of jurors. Everybody worked together well, without too much runaway emotionalism. And I think we came to the correct verdict. It was actually less tendentious than the jury I served on for a four day trial in a state court ( but even that was fun ).

Of course I AM a government employee, so I did get paid for those seven + weeks. No doubt that heavily shades one’s view of the burden ;). I actually did lose a little bit of holiday pay, but it was well worth it. I’d happily serve again.

[Daylate]

About 20 years ago I was on a panel of jurors in Seattle District Court. The judge allowed notetaking, and also allowed the jurors to submit questions in writing.

I came out of this with a whole lot more respect for the judicial system than previously. I was on two cases (assault with an ax, and a street corner stabbing) and had the same judge for both. He went out of his way to make the jurors feel that they were equal partners in determining the outcome of the trials - in fact, the whole procedure was quite intereting and rewarding.

And yes, we found both the defendants guilty.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Alan_Smithee

For starters, “beyond a reasonable doubt” needs to be replaced with a clearer standard. What does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean? When I served on a jury, there was a disagreement among the jurors on what it meant. All but one of us believed that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, even though we all seemed to think it was very likely the defendant was guilty. One juror claimed that while the prosecution hadn’t done a very good job, he personally had no doubt that the defendant was guilty. He couldn’t rationally argue with our doubts, and in fact agreed that they were reasonable, but held that since he personally had no doubts reasonable or otherwise, he had to vote guilty. I and others tried to convince him that if he admitted that certain doubts were objectively reasonable, it didn’t matter how emotionally convinced of guilt he was. Anyone who believed he was guilty should nevertheless vote “not guilty” if they believed that a reasonable person could rationally disagree based on the evidence. The judge, however, refused to define or clarify it.

The judge also informed us that we were required to form a unanimous opinion, and that to declare ourselves hung would comprise a dereliction of our duty to the court. The result was that while we all began by making rational arguments, we quickly descended to emotional and even false arguments to convince the one hold out. Eventually, he acquiesced, but he was clear that he was doing so because we pressured him to, not because he was convinced that it was right. The system seemed set up to guarantee such a process, in fact, in any situation where the correct verdict is not immediately clear to everyone.

This combined with the fact that all of us agreed that not only was the defendant probably guilty but that if he was guilty a competent prosecutor could easily have resolved our doubts led me to leave the trial with a much diminished confidence in our justice system.

This is almost exactly my one experience being on a jury with the exception that the hold out was a woman.

The best part was that the prosecution had a tape that allegedly showed the defendant committing the crime but we could not view it since it was in an incompatible format with the courts player and they hadn’t bothered to verify this or bring their own player.

[Mosier]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

The best part was that the prosecution had a tape that allegedly showed the defendant committing the crime but we could not view it since it was in an incompatible format with the courts player and they hadn’t bothered to verify this or bring their own player.

You have got to be kidding me. You guys never saw the recording, then?

[Recovering_Republican]

@pbbth

Lots of people who serve on juries are not “compliant slugs” or otherwise too dumb to get out of it. For myself and several of the people who sat on the jury with me at a trial last October, we discussed it during lunch and I believe 8 out of the 12 of us were there because we believed that it was our duty as Americans and because we knew would want a jury of our peers if we were ever on trial for anything so we wanted to provide the same opportunity to the defendants. I believe that most people who fight to get out of jury duty do so because they can’t handle the loss of pay for the days they are going to serve and that the people who feel like only schmucks would serve jury duty if they could otherwise get out of it are in a small minority.

Sorry, my faith in the jury system died when O.J. was acquitted, and we saw these dumb idiots explain why they acquitted a double murderer who was caught red handed.

[Recovering_Republican]

@Voyager

As the father-in-law of a recent law school graduate, now studying for the bar exam, I’d tell you where you could put this idea if this were the Pit. Do you propose to pay off the loans of the recent graduates while they are doing this?

You’ve mistaken me for someone who gives a darn. Do you really think I care about lawyers? Seriously?

I’d suspect 99.5% of all trials are not complex, and have defendants who can’t afford or don’t need consultants. You should stop watching the court groupies.!"

Oh, I agree, in fact, only 2% of cases are heard by juries, about 60% are plead out. But for that very small group that is, it is obvious that the average Joe on the street, the fine product of public education and unionized teachers, doesn’t understand complex stuff like DNA.

Like the OJ juror who only read the racing form, and said, “Well, I didn’t understand that, so I just ignored it.”

Judges aren’t stupid. I can imagine one saying “And I can jail you for contempt JUST LIKE THAT!”

Funny, I heard a joke once. “What do you call a retarded lawyer?” “Your Honor.”

The best thing I can say about the judiciary is that I try to avoid dealing with it at any time.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Mosier

You have got to be kidding me. You guys never saw the recording, then?

Nope. The judge wouldn’t allow them the time to fix the problem. He said they should have been better prepared. He was on a very strict timetable and he’d made that clear from the beginning.

[alphaboi867]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

This is almost exactly my one experience being on a jury with the exception that the hold out was a woman.

The best part was that the prosecution had a tape that allegedly showed the defendant committing the crime but we could not view it since it was in an incompatible format with the courts player and they hadn’t bothered to verify this or bring their own player.

The DA in my case claimed that the defendant brought the alleged victim to a clinic just over the state line twice for abortions (it was a statutory rape case). I found it very odd he didn’t bother getting her medical records or even finding out the name of said clinic. :rolleyes: The defense found it odd too. I really hope that idiot get’s voted out this fall. After trial I got a generic form letter from his office thanking me for my service; at the bottom he (or one of his staff) handwrote “I know you were only an alternate, but maybe if you’d gotten to deliberate thing’s would’ve been different”. I wrote a response letter saying that no, I would’ve voted for not guiltey just as fast as everyone else did (20 minutes) and that I thought his comments at the end were childish, but didn’t send it. I wonder what would happen to a *defence *attorney who sent a letter like that to a juror after he lost.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

I think the jury system works better than any other system in the world for criminal cases. I think we should get rid of juries (or truncate their role) in civil cases.