Jury System gone nuts...again

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK's post reminds me of Samuel L. Jackson in A Time To Kill, who looking at a bunch of old white biddies in the jury box says, "And *this* is s'posed to be a jury of my peers?"

Doctors and lawyers can get jury duty just like anyone else. Clinton's number got tagged in a NYC case recently - and I posted an article about his voir dire on here. However, lawyers will cut professionals from the jury normally. Plus, even if there was one doctor on the panel, it would still be a serious minority.

It is true that juries tend to look at a hurt person and give them at least some money. Especially where a rich/wealthy defendant is involved. It's spread the pain mentality.

But is it fair Does the average joeschmoe really constitute a peer of a professional? are they really qualified to judge wether the guy was reasonably competent in his field? I still think not.....of course my theory would have drug dealers being judged by other dealers...hmmm maybe they could be lumped in as a "retail" group and be judged by suppliers of all sorts?

[Thorfinn]

Timber, you know better than most here that the intent of voir dire is to eliminate anyone capable of an independent thought. Attorneys don't want free-thinking individuals on a jury, they want sheep that they can herd about, and whichever lawyer is the better shepherd wins the day...

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Timber, you know better than most here that the intent of voir dire is to eliminate anyone capable of an independent thought. Attorneys don't want free-thinking individuals on a jury, they want sheep that they can herd about, and whichever lawyer is the better shepherd wins the day...

No, voir dire is to weed out conflicts and prejudgments in decision-making. That's the court's use of it. That's why most challenges need a basis, e.g. the lady who says "I just believe everything a cop says on the stand and take it as absolute truth - sorry." (I've seen that one, btw - a certain lass I know used to avoid jury duty. Take notes, y'all.)

For the attorneys, the intent is not so much to find sheep, but people who will likely side with them and who have likely prejudged the issue, but don't really know it.

So, we do want free thinkers - those who think like us.

You will note that in every jurisdiction, the automatic challenges (I challenge jury Y for no reason at all - good bye Y) are very few and far between. So, during voir dire, you need to ferret out and grill those people who would side with the other party, and try to expose their prejudices or conflicts (e.g. used to work for the defendant corp.) so you can challenge them for cause. At the same time, you want to identify those who are on your side, and NOT grill them too much, because you don't want to ferret out their prejudices or conflicts.

All in all, a fun game. Is it useful? Dunno. I've seen them and mocked them, but never done a voir dire myself. Someday, maybe.

[Night Stalker]

The trial by peers is a good point though. On a military court martial (redundant? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) the jury is representitive of the rank of the defendant. An officer will only officers, a senior NCO will have an officer or two, mostly senior NCOs and a junior NCO or two, an NCO will have a similar structure, and an enlisted will have other enlisted replacing some of the NCO slots. All weightings are rank related (an E6 would have more E6s on the jury).

This gives the defendant representation by peers, as well as other more experienced members.

[Thorfinn]

Did not know that, Night Stalker. Interesting.

Timber, I spoke hastily. I should not have said that was the intent of voir dire, but the effect. If not, why are the courts so deathly afraid of anyone who has heard of the phrase "jury nullification"? Why are they terrified that the sheeple might find out that their duty as a juror is not merely to judge the facts, but also the law?

And I honestly don't give a damn what the relative powers of the various branches are. My beef is that any one of them can smack around large fractions of the population at will, with no personal responsibility for doing it. I don't care whether the administration has 13 cudgels and the judicial system has only 12. I believe each branch already has usurped way too much power.

That is why voir dire is such a serious matter in a court -- in a budding tyranny, you have to make sure the serfs don't take cudgels away from ther government...

[Arvon]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: The trial by peers is a good point though. On a military court martial (redundant? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) the jury is representitive of the rank of the defendant. An officer will only officers, a senior NCO will have an officer or two, mostly senior NCOs and a junior NCO or two, an NCO will have a similar structure, and an enlisted will have other enlisted replacing some of the NCO slots. All weightings are rank related (an E6 would have more E6s on the jury). This gives the defendant representation by peers, as well as other more experienced members.

Hmmm I remember the OJ trial where the prosecution did such a stirling job on jury selection.

[Vaskez]

On a side note: doctors being in the profession for the money is by no means a universal thing. In Hungary for example, doctors are among the worst paid of any profession. My aunt is a head surgeon and her gross salary is something like $750 per month! The system that has evolved there is that it is customary and almost expected that cured patients give monetary gifts to their doctors thus augmenting their crap pay.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: why are the courts so deathly afraid of anyone who has heard of the phrase "jury nullification"? Why are they terrified that the sheeple might find out that their duty as a juror is not merely to judge the facts, but also the law?

Point of order: juries do NOT decide LAW, juries are fact-finders. If juries don't like the law, they can elect different legislators and judges. Otherwise, the law does not have uniform application. A jury CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be able to toss away a statute or a 100-year-old legal precedent because they don't like it in the case at bar. A jury decides facts, and if it applies those facts to the law incorrectly, the judge will issue the correct legal ruling based on the facts. Juries are fact-finders only.

I'll note that if jury nullification were a viable tool, we would once again be dealing with a version of the "50%+1" problem you have with the system.

Vaskez, in many countries lawyers are blue-collar workers as well. Thailand comes to mind. Even in the USA, up until about 50 years ago one could go straight from High School to law school. It was a trade, not a profession.

[Thorfinn]

Sorry, Timber Loftis, but your teachers have led you astray. Since June 15, 1215, when King James was forced to sign the Magna Carta, the ability of a jury to nullify arbitrary and capricious rules handed down by the governemnt has been enshrined in common law.

William Penn was brought before court in 1670 for preaching a Quaker sermon, instead of the approved Anglican sermon. Edward Bushell led the jury which refused to convict Penn for violating the law. The jury was sequestered without food, water, or toilet facilities, and still refused to convict. Four of the jury were imprisoned for their refusal to convict. The English High Court eventually freed them, and enshrined the notion that members of the jury could not be punished for their verdicts.

The Zenger case was amazingly similar, except that Zenger was being punished for libel, which the court agreed was the truth, but was not in the best interests of the state.

Several of the founding fathers went on record explaining the unlimited power of the jury to resolve law and fact.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1798.

"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
--John Adams, 1771.

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
--John Jay, first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794.

More recently, the courts have also recognized this power of the jury, though usually only at great cost to the defendants.

"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts."
--Mr. Justice Holmes, for the majority in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).


"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."
--United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.

And you might want to check to see how many Supreme Court Justices have been impeached. Or I could save you the trouble. One. Samuel Chase, for the charge of denying jurors the right to judge the law.


No, and I cannot stress that enough, it is the duty of every juror to protect a defendant's 6th Amendment rights by judging both the fact and the law itself.

[ 04-30-2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]