(This seems like a debatable subject, so I placed it here. Apologies if it doesn’t seem to fit the forum description.)
I have a layman’s knowledge of the US justice system, so it could be that my idea can be blown to shreds in mere seconds, but then I’ll at least know. My idea is thus:
The lawyers select their jurors as usual. Then the chosen jurors go home, with little or no knowledge of the pending trial, or the defendent (defendant?). The trial begins, sans jurors, but it’s filmed. The defendent is kept out of the picture entirely, to minimize the jurors’ racial or other prejudices.
Once the trial is complete, the video is edited to remove anything the jurors are supposed to disregard. The edited footage is approved by the judge and lawyers. Then the jurors view the footage and decide the verdict.
The jurors would know before hand how long the trial is going to last. They’d be able to rewatch key interviews. They wouldn’t know what the defendent looks like and base decisions on how attractive they see that person.
The one downside I see is that trials would take twice as long for the judge and lawyers.
Oops, meant to add that a defendant who chooses to testify would obviously be waiving the right to keep the jurors in the dark as to his/her appearance. Unless the defendant’s image were blurred/shadowed.
One piece of evidence that is important to the jurors is how the defendent reacts to the witnesses. They watch how he reacts to what they say, whether he is hostile or not, how they react to him. It is all part of whether they are credible.
I suspect that this would not pass judicial muster, in terms of allowing jurors to weigh the credibility of the various witnesses. Being there, body language, tone of voice, how others react to them, is all important in judging credibility.
For what it’s worth, I’m an attorney and it sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps it should be taken even further: pick the jury after the trial.
See, it’s common for cases to settle during trial or after trial but before the jury has reached a verdict. In those situations, the jury’s time has been wasted.
A jury’s time is also wasted when the judge declares a mistrial. With the OP’s system, you need only pop a blank tape into the machine and start again.
Another advantage would be that when the jury is being selected, the court would be able to tell the jury exactly how many days would be necessary.
Perhaps you could have an extra camera focused on the parties and a split screen.
Perhaps, but the procedure could be voluntary – only if both sides agree to it. I would probably agree to it because it would save time and reduce the risk of having a mistrial declared because an attorney said the wrong thing at the wrong time.
The quality of video/DVD really isn’t that great and in circumstances as important as a legal trial, it wouldn’t be the greatest idea to shortchange either the defending or the prosecuting party by lowering the quality of the trial. Sure if some sort of super-realistic, holographic technology came along that allowed the jurors to be fully immersed in the environment, the OP’s system might be viable. But till then, the normal tension and importance of a trial can’t be captured in a simple video tape. Movies are highly dramatized and acting is a profession requiring great skill, all so a normal level of emotion can be realized by the audience. I don’t believe the justice system has enough resources to spend on a Hollywood level production of trials simply so the jury can save time. Who really cares about the amount of time the jury commits? Its not like they have to be compensated. Its one of the duties obligated of the citizens of the United States as an exchange for the wonderful rights we are granted. The OP’s system would likely end up costing far more than it would save, with a degradation in the distribution of justice.
Then if I were ever wrongfully prosecuted, I would be toast. I used to play a lot of pranks on my neighbours as a kid. Unfortunately, I have the tendency to laugh guiltily even if I didn’t do anything, when asked about some prank. I sure wouldn’t want to be in front of a jury.
Perhaps such body language shouldn’t be used as a basis for judgement. Body language is easy to misinterpret, and some people are far better at controlling it than others.
If the defendant scowled when the witness said he saw him kill his mother with a chainsaw, is he scowling because he knows the witness is lying, or is it because he got caught? I know lots of people who laugh when they’re nervous or scared. If they were on trial, they could certainly start laughing at an inappropriate time and the jury could interpret that incorrectly.
I always thought it was supposed to be only facts with which the jury made their decisions. That’s part of what prompted this idea in the first place. It seems, from what little I know of trials, that using anything but the facts and circumstances of the crime does the justice system a disservice.
Apart from all the other issues, how could anyone ever be sure that the tapes weren’t deliberately doctored or inadvertently edited/altered? Even losing a few words could change the tone of a witness’s entire testimony. (“I saw him do it” vs. “I think maybe I saw him do it.”) Would you want your life and freedom in the hands of video technicians?
You could have two versions of the video. One produced by the prosecution and one produced by the defense. Each could add their own music in the background to dramatize key moments in the trial. Sounds crazy, but it would take courtroom dramatics to a new level.
A lot of times at trials, the information is incredibly boring. During one trial, when they were reading a deposition, I actually watched some of the jurors fall asleep! It’s hard enough getting them to concentrate on stuff when it’s actually happening, it would be even harder to do so if it was all stuff that happened in the past.
Also, by replaying things over and over and over again, the jurors may overanalyze things. Often it’s better to go with the first impression that you get from something, not the impression after lots of replays.
I like this idea. I’ve never had to do jury duty, but I’ve always wondered how I was just supposed to ignore something I’ve seen and not let it affect me later during deiliberations. I’m sure there are a few other bugs in your plan that I am not qualified to diagnose, but I like the general premise.