Criminal Justice Jury System and Factors Affecting Jury Decisions - Essay Example

Introduction Is the criminal justice jury system the most reliable means for determining guilt or innocence Are jury decisions valid and binding Can evidence from expert witnesses replace jurors These are some of the queries that have plagued the criminal jury system. To provide answers to these, we must examine various issues peculiar with the jury system. The use of a Common Law Trial or Jury was first instituted in England on June 15, 1215.1 It was signed by King John and created the basis of the present constitutional system of justice in many countries around the world. Prior to the declaration of independence in the United States, the twelve states that signed and adopted a written constitution, included and acknowledged the right of an accused person to a trail by a jury of his peers. (King, 1999) This was the only right that was agreed unanimously by the twelve participating states. Accordingly the trial jury acquired veto power over the law and became more powerful than any government official such as Judges. An appeals court in the United States described the power of a jury "unreviewable and irreversible" over that of a trail judge. (Jurors Handbook) The jury system has become one of the most important aspects of criminal procedures in many countries, though the procedures adopted differ from country to country and even within a country as is evident in the United States, nevertheless, the jury is perceived to bring in certain attributes of the communities to bear. In Australia, the jury list is made up of people who had been elected from randomly from the electoral rolls,2 same for the United States, where potential jurors are now randomly selected by a computer using electoral or driver's licenses records. (Doyle, 2004) Factors Affecting Jury Decisions The duties of a jury are to asses only the facts of a case in reaching a verdict, but there are certain factors that affect the conduct or predisposition of any potential or chosen juror. Juries can be influenced by the Judges, attorneys, defendants, their particular lifestyles and beliefs and many other possible factors. Various studies conducted have shown that jurors could be influenced beyond the scope of evidence by a defendants attributes e.g. race, status or sex. For example, in one of the studies conducted,(Decaire, n.a.) white and black male subjects were exposed to cases with defendants and victims of varied races, it was observed that in cases involving white victims the white subjects (jurors) showed bias, placing higher guilt against black defendants accused of crimes against white people, thus showing that jury recommendations can be influenced by their individual stereotype of crime and the alleged criminal. Judge decisions. Judicial influence over any jury trial is as important as the role the jurors play. Though it is the members of the jury who return the guilty or innocent verdict, the powers of a presiding judge also allows him to prevent the introduction of 'illegal' evidence or argument by counsels in support of both prosecution and defences. Judges do not tell jurors what to deduce from the evidence presented to them, but they have powers to prevent the jurors from hearing any evidence deemed not suitable to achieving a fair trial. For instance, if a jury is presiding over a rape case, the sitting judge might not allow the jury hear evidence of the rape victim's past sexual history. This is to prevent the jurors being influenced by facts outside the present case. Psychological or expert witness. The role of expert-witness in the criminal justice system is a person who has some special training or experience in a criminal behavioural area and can help the judge, lawyers and the juries arrive at the truth in the judicial process. (Yablonsky, 1998) Most of these experts are however paid consultants and present evidence that advance the case of their clients. They are therefore mostly perceived as 'hired guns' and their credibility questioned. Recently in the UK, Professor Sir Roy Meadow's name was struck off the medical register after he was found guilty of giving erroneous and misleading expert evidence in a case. (Heald, 2005) Little legal knowledge. One of the major criticisms of the jury system is the perceived lack of legal knowledge by juries. Most jurors are ordinary citizens with no training in law; and as a result require constant 'guidance' from the judge on relevant topics of law as required. During a jury selection process, potential jurors who reveal that they have doubts about the law are regularly excused, also in other to ensure fair trial, incriminating evidence may be barred by the judge owing to the belief that the jury would not be competent enough to "assess its proper weight and relevance". (King, 1999) Not representative of population A system for selecting jurors randomly from voter lists was adopted by the US Congress in 1970, freeing federal courts from the more discretionary state jury selection schemes and eliminating the exemptions for certain professions which had distorted jury pools in the past. (King, 1999), this was to stem the ugly practice of non representative juries, where juries were not descriptive of the population. Most juries consisted mostly of white middle class people while the under educated working class people were left out of the process. In the United States, African Americans were often prevented from jury service. This exclusion denied equal protection of the law to African American defendants who were subject to a trail in which all members of the jury were white. (King, 1999) The United States Supreme Court overturned several questionable convictions based on racial discrimination and bias. Today however, though jury selection is still rife with complaints of one or more forms of discrimination, steps taken have thus eased fears of unfair juries. Jury statistics According to the Civil justice statistic released by the United states Justice department, in the State courts in 2001,3 where the 75 largest counties in the United States were surveyed; results showed that out of an estimated 11,908 tort, contract, and real property trial cases, 75% i.e. 8,595 were jury trials. A breakdown of the results showed that in 53% of jury trial cases and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding an estimated $3.9 billion in compensatory and punitive damages. On the other hand, bench trials accounted for 24% (2,828) of the nearly 12,000 civil trial cases, with the plaintiffs winning in 65% of bench trials and receiving an estimated $369 million in compensatory and punitive damages. In federal courts, of the 98,786 tort cases that were terminated in U.S. district courts during fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 1,647 or 2% were decided by a bench or jury trial. After reaching a peak of 3,600 trials in 1985, the number of tort cases concluded by bench or jury trial has declined by nearly 80%. Juries decided 71% of tort cases brought to trial but plaintiffs won more often in bench trials in comparison to jury trials. Authors Baldwin and McConville4 found that as many as 5 percent of jury trials in England came up with disturbingly questionable convictions. Also authors Kalven and Zeisal2 stated that judges and jurors did not agree regarding the verdicts 20 percent of cases. In terms of jury summons and service, a report said that about one-quarter to one-half of the estimated twenty million individuals who receive jury qualification questionnaires each year in the mail will either be exempted or disqualified from serving. Others who will be summoned will simply not show up. The report states that only less than half of those who appear for jury service will become sworn jurors in criminal or civil cases. (King, 1999) Conclusion There are various areas of concern regarding the effectiveness of the common law jury system. An ever growing body of evidence suggests that juries may be, both consciously and unconsciously, using a number of extra-evidential factors in order to come to their decisions. Many psychological studies have provided insights to the external influence of the defendants, jurors, attorneys, and judges' on jurors. The jurors' primary role of determining a case base on just facts of that case is therefore seriously undermined and the credibility of the trial decisions questioned. In order to correct the perceived imbalances, priority must be given to a proper education of potential jurors, this will enable them make independent decisions. Expert witnesses whose credibility's are greatly questioned can not substitute effectively the role of a jury. The welfare of the jury must also be looked into; issues regarding work and family peculiarities must be addressed to ensure that a juror gives a 100% when called upon to serve. The jury system is therefore most reliable for determining guilt or innocence and remains an important right of citizens. References "Civil Justice Statistics" (2005). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Last revised December 14, 2005. Retrieved Mar 29, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm Decaire, MW. The Faltering Common Law Jury System: A Psychological Perspective. Retrieved Mar 29, 2006, from http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc24.html Doyle, John. (2004). Juries the Corner Stone of our Justice System. Courts Administration Authority and the South Australian Department of Education and Children's Services. Retrieved Mar 29, 2006, from http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/schools/resources/fact_sheets/The_jury_system_15.pdf Heald, C. (2005). What future for an expert witness. BBC News. Last updated Wed, 13 July, 2005, 16:04 GMT. Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4637687.stm Jurors' Handbook. A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty. Caught. Retrieved Mar 30, 2006, from http://www.caught.net/juror.htm King, Nancy J. (1999). The American Criminal Jury. Law and Contemporary Problems. Retrieved Mar 29, 2006, from http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp62dSpring1999p41.htm "The role of juries". (2003). The State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney- General) 2003. Updated 16 August 2004. Retrieved Mar 29, 2006. http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/courts/about/jurors.htm Yablonsky, Lewis (1998). The Role of a Gang Expert-Witness in the Criminal Justice System. Last updated Feb 2005. Retrieved Mar 29, 2006, from http://www.lewyablonsky.com/articles/expert_witness.html Read More