The Trial by Jury - Essay Example

Trial by Jury Introduction: The trial by jury is meant to represent a democratic system, since members of a jury are chosen from among the public and are therefore likely to represent community values, while also being devoted to preserving the liberty of the subject/accused against oppression by the State to promote citizen understanding of the system and confidence in the justice system1. However, the introduction of the majority vote in jury trials, overriding the original requirement of unanimity in juror verdicts has introduced an element of prejudice into the impartiality of the judicial process. Moreover, through the device of peremptory challenge which has been allowed in the selection of jurors, it has become possible for the defense or the prosecution to manipulate the composition of the jury to suit their own purposes and further the verdict they seek to achieve, thereby making a mockery of the impartiality and dependability of the judicial process, which works to uncover the facts surrounding a case from an unbiased perspective and through an application of the law by honest, fair and unprejudiced jurors. Therefore, unless a pure jury system is reintroduced, the truth could be obscured or manipulated through the devices mentioned above and it may become necessary for a judge to adopt a more inquisitorial role to probe deeper to discover the truth. Criticism of the Jury trial system: One of the first aspects that belies the impartiality of the pure jury trial process lies in the terms “on indictment” in Article 80 of the Constitution, whereby the jury trial may be precluded altogether through Parliament authorizing summary proceedings for any offence.2 Fricke illustrates the merits of the pure jury system that was able to acquit 13 diggers who were accused of treason in the Eureka trials, thus illustrating the power of the democratic jury trial process in upholding the popular perspective over the official establishment view3. But the compromising of the pure jury trial process may be noted in Justice Wright’s criticism4 of the existing jury trial system on the basis that juries deliver wrong verdicts, because they essentially consist of amateurs who are easily influenced and manipulated by clever counsels. Hence it may be necessary for judges themselves to step in and uncover the truth which the jury may not be able to successfully achieve. The case of R v Laws5 also points out the dangers in using juries who may divulge information about jury deliberations before the verdict is reached in a case. In the case of Cheatle v R6 the HCA pointed out the underlying basis for the requirement of unanimity in a jury trial – to ensure that an accused person is given the “benefit of any reasonable doubt” in the trial and convicted only if his/her guilt can be conclusively established.7 As pointed out in the case of Hibdon v United States8, where a majority verdict was rejected, waiving the defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict would interfere with the due process requirement that his/her guilt is to be established by “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”9 The implementation of the majority verdict rule has been opposed by experts, including Professor David Brown of the University of New South Wales who is of the opinion that miscarriage of justice may result, shifting the focus from the collective, impartial nature of a unanimous jury verdict to a situation where individual prejudices of the jurors can taint their casting of their vote.10 This leaves scope for further manipulation of the verdict to suit procedural convenience rather than the true interests of justice to the accused. According to the Law reform Commission report11 allowing the opinion of the majority to override the reasonable doubt of one juror could prove detrimental to the interests of justice and could result in the conviction of an innocent person. In the film 12 Angry Men, the character played by Henry Fonda who is the one solitary juror who entertains a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, states as follows: “Everybody sounded so positive. I began to get a peculiar feeling …..nothing is that positive.” This highlights further, the importance of ensuring that if there is even the slightest doubt about the accused’s guilt, the possibility of convicting an innocent person must be avoided at all costs. Any innocent person being tried would desire unanimity – “the vote of all twelve of our fellow citizens.”12 Through the rigors of the pure jury process therefore, what can be ensured is the truth is not sacrificed to convenience or superficial examinations of the issues in a case. In response to arguments about rogue jurors and increased time expended in unanimous trials, the Law Commission report has pointed out that both federal and state procedures can be completed in one unanimous trial, however majority verdicts introduced at State levels mean duplication of trials since at federal level, the requirement of unanimity still stands. The question of juror bias also plays a role in the manipulation of trial verdicts through jury selection procedures. In a pure jury trial every allowance must be made to ensure that jurors biased in any manner are excused from the jury, so that the integrity of the jury is not compromised13 and that “extremes of partiality and prejudice” are eliminated.14 In this way, it will also be possible for the jury to uncover the truth in the case. The option of peremptory challenge by jury is intended to allow the defendant some leeway in removing any juror whose impartiality may be suspect for one reason or another15. Aprile suggests that a defendant should in fact, be permitted more peremptory strikes to ensure fairness to it.16 However the notion of peremptory challenge has been criticized on many fronts, since it proves to be a somewhat arbitrary process in practice. According to Hoffman, peremptory challenges undermine public trust in the jury system17. Jurors may be challenged on the basis of gender, age, occupation or appearance – in face, no reasons have to be supplied for the rejection by defense of any member of the jury. This can therefore sometimes be an intimidating process for jurors who are subjected to a process where the time they have willingly sacrificed to appear for jury service is rewarded instead with an arbitrary dismissal from juror service. Moreover, the composition of the jury can be cleverly manipulated by Counsels through the selection of only those jurors who are likely to provide the desired verdict. The net result could therefore be a jury selected to advance the ends of a particular party rather than the cause of truth, which will compromise the purpose for which the jury is set up and ascribe a more inquisitorial role to the Judge. Conclusions: On the basis of the above, it may be noted that majority verdicts and peremptory challenges both introduce an element of unfairness and arbitrariness in the jury selection and operation process, such that prosecution or defense may be able to manipulate the workings of the jury process in order to suit their own ends. For example, in the film “Runaway Jury” one juror manipulates the entire process of jury deliberations by getting to each juror in turn, thus producing a manipulated verdict rather than ensuring that an impartial trial by jury process is maintained. Such a jury cannot be depended upon to uncover the truth and a Judge may have to play a more active role in the process. The purpose of the jury trial has been to ensure that elements of fairness and justice are introduced into the criminal justice system such that the will of the people is represented and the best interests of the accused are served. The ultimate purpose is to ensure that no innocent person is convicted and that only a person who is found to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt receives the necessary punishment. However, by introducing the majority vote, individual prejudices of the jurors override the impartiality of the unanimous verdict. Hence it is likely that despite the existence of a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, conviction may still take place since the focus shifts to ensuring convenience in procedure rather than battling out the difficulties of hung jury or rogue juror to ensure that a fair and impartial verdict is reached at any cost. Manipulation of juries through peremptory challenges provides further hindrance in the impartiality and balance of the judicial process. Bibliography * ABC Interview 7/3/2000 (slide 36-37) * Aprile, J Vincent, 1995. “Peremptory strikes: the prosecutorial advantage” Criminal Justice, 44 * Fricke G, “Trial by Jury”, Research Paper No 11 1996-97, Law & Bills Digest Group, Australian Parliamentary Library. * Fricke, G, 1997.”The Eureka Trials” Australian law Journal 71, 59 * Hoffman, Morris B, 1999. “Abolish Peremptory challenges” Judicature, 82(5):202 * “Jury trial: Defendant in a Federal criminal prosecution cannot waive his constitutional rights to a unanimous jury verdict.” 1953. Virginia law review, 39(8) : 1101-1103 * NSW Bar Association media release, “Reasonable doubt about majority verdicts.” 11 March 2006. * NSW Law reform Commission (1985) Discussion paper pp 91 * Majority verdicts: a poor judgment” Sydney Morning Herald, Nov 10, 2005, pp 11 * Majority verdicts (August 2005) * Vennard, Julie and Riley, David, 1988. “The use of peremptory challenge and stand by of jurors and their relationship to trial outcome.” Criminal law Review, p 732 Cases: * Cheatle v R 177 CLR 541 * Hibdon v United States 204 F.2d 834 (1953) (6th Cir) * Johns v The Queen (1979) 141 CLR 409 * Kingswell v R (1985) 159 CLR 264 * R v Laws (2000) NSWSC 885 (5 Sept 2000) Read More