The Concept of a Trial by a Jury - Essay Example

The Concept of a Trial by a Jury The concept of a trial by a jury of one’s peers takes its roots from the British Magna Carta 1215. (Magna Carta 1215, Chapter 39) This concept provides the present day practice where an ideal jury panel is representative of the defendant’s peers with no special requirements only that they reasonable members of the community. (Prakash, 2007, 69) In this vein a jury of one’s peers provided and continues to provide a bastion between the ordinary citizen and the government. (Prakash, 2007, 70) The goal was and remains for a jury to be free to determine the defendant’s guilt without pressure from the government. In the early case of William Penn and William Mead in 1670, this concept was challenged. William Penn and William Mead had been arrested, charged and tried at the Old Bailey for “tumultuous assembly” on a Sunday afternoon in London. (Randle, 2001) The jury had refused to convict and the judge in response had ordered the jury sequestered without food or drink or “so much as a chamber pot, though desired.” (Randle, 2001) Despite this kind of pressure the jurors continued to hold out with the result that they were fined and imprisoned. (Randle, 2001) A juror applied for a writ of habeas corpus and a judge of the King’s Bench ruled that no jury could be penalized for its verdict. (Knight, 1881, 211) Penn and Mead’s trial reflected some of the limitations and constraints on the fundamental concept of a fair and impartial jury as envisaged by the Magna Carta’s mandate for a trial by a jury of one’s peers. If a judge could put pressure on a jury or sanction the jury if it did not decide a case one way, there was no barrier between the government and the ordinary citizen. It is a fundamental concept of jury trials that the individual on trial is judged by the ordinary citizen. It was during the time of Penn’s trial that the American jury system began to establish itself as a protective barrier between the government and the accused man. (American Bar Association) This was particularly popular at a time when Americans regarded British laws as too harsh. In the final analysis, the perpetuation of such a jury is inconsistent with an element of fairness to both the accused and the victim which is an extension of the community at large. Modern jury selection techniques in America today ensure that both sides are well represented by the jury panel. The underlying goal is the selection of a panel that is impartial to both sides. . For instance, the common practice today is for the selection of jurors based on an assessment of their ability to determine the facts and issues objectively, as opposed to partially or in favour of one side over another. Roger Ballard explains that: “...the jury is the source of that vital yardstick ‘the reasonable man’: the instrument through which a relevantly contextualised assessment of things done or said can be confidently and, at least in principle, reliably implemented.” (Prakash, 69) It therefore follows that upon applying a broader definition of jury duty, the jury’s represents democracy distinguishing between public and private powers and thereby functions as “a legitimating institution.” (Nockleby, 2007) The US Constitution indorses the democratic function of the jury by providing for the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. It can be argued however, the developments in the jury selection process over the years which permit both sides to select a jury which is likely to render a favourable verdict undermines the concept of impartiality. However as Nockleby maintains, the democratic benefits associated with jury trials far outweighs any concerns about the likelihood that impartial jurors cannot be selected in today’s jury selection processes. values of a jury system offset this setback to impartiality. (Nockleby, 2007) Moreover, the fact that both sides engage in the same selection process cancel each other out with the result that the jury panel ultimately selected is balanced. The original jury pools which comprise the candidates from which jurors will be selected come from the voter registration list. This process is called the voir dire which permits the vetting or screening of putative jurors to determine ensure whether or not they are impartial. (Hans and Vidmar, 2001, 63-78) The ultimate goal of the voir dire vetting of prospective jurors is to eliminate from the pool unpredictable jurors by asking questions calculated to solicit specific background information that predetermines their individual reasoning qualities. (Roberts, 1987, 141-143) This is one of the major changes implemented by the American jury system as a means of departing from the English random jury selection process. The idea is that random selection runs the danger of allowing jurors with pre-existing biases to sit on a jury will undermine the concept of impartiality. The significance of the voir dire and its importance to the concept of impartiality was delineated by the US Supreme Court as follow: “Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge’s responsibility to remove prospective juror’s who will not be able impartially to follow the court’s instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled.” (Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (1981)) Despite the emphasis on jury trials as a means of securing the jury selection process has developed into a science in which attorneys with the help of a jury consultant in most cases will endeavour to eliminate from the jury pools those potential jurors whom they consider are not amenable to the verdict desired. (Strier and Shestowsky, 1999, 441-451) Jury consultants practice what has become known as jury selection science, a science which has conducted extensive research into the psychological and demographic aspects of juror comprehension skills and how each of the pre-existing elements influence juror deliberation. They provide expert advise on what characteristics to look for in jurors and how to identify them. (Strier and Shestowsky, 1999, 441-451) Jury selection science however is used by both sides of a trial and as previously stated provides for a more balanced jury. With both sides fully utilizing jury selection science the result is a balanced group of jurors with communication, debating and comprehension skills that are more likely to reach a fair decision than a panel of random members of the community. In most cases attorneys for both sides are relying indirectly on research science that helps them to select leaders rather than followers. At the end of the day the least that can be expected is a verdict that was well debated and well deliberated on. In this way it is more likely than not that an accused person would have received a fair and impartial trial and as leaders will not be pressured either by the judiciary or each other to render an untrue verdict. Bibliography American Bar Association. (n.d.) “Dialogue on the American Jury: We the People in Action.” Available online at: http://www.abanet.org/jury/moreinfo/dialoguepart1.pdf Retrieved June 24, 2008 Hans, Valerie, P. and Vidmar, Neil. Judging the Jury. US: Basic Books, 2001. Knight, Charles. The Popular History of England. London: J. W. Lowell, 1881. Magna Carta 1215 Nockleby, John, T. (2007) “What’s a Jury Good For?” Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper, No. 2007-15 Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=965065 Retrieved June 13, 2008. Randle, Michael. “Is Our System So Perverse?” The Observer, October 14, 2001. Available online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/oct/14/jurytrials.humanrights Retrieved June 24, 2008 Roberts, Margaret. Trial Psychology: Communication and Persuasion in the Courtroom. Austin, Texas: Butterworths, 1987 Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (1981) Shah, Prakash (ed)Law and Ethnic Plurality: Socio-Legal Perspectives. Boston: Martinus Jijhoff Publishers, 2007. Strier, Franklin and Shestowsky, Donna. “Profiling the Profilers: A Study of the Trial Consulting Profession, Its Impact on Trial Justice, and What, If Anything, to do About it.” Wisconsin Law Review, (1999), 441-451. Read More