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?

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

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

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

Trial by Jury

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

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

Duncan v. Lousiana(1968)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

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

Petitioner claimed denied equal protection (6th and 14th amendment) of the law through State’s 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

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?

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

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?

Jury as a Political InstitutionJury 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

DeTocquevilleDeTocqueville

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

Jury Nullification: The Right to Jury Nullification: The Right to Say NoSay 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