How fair is the American Jury System? Updated: Apr 11, 2010
	Can an innocent person survive it?
	03/20/2009
	Paper By: Howard Taylor
	Click here for the Jurors Handbook If you have not participated in the U.S. legal process as a juror this is an article you need to read before you do. Pass the url of this paper on to your friends. If you have served as a juror or been as far as being rejected after questioning you may look back on your experience through different eyes after reading this. Those involved in the legal process in this country are often very quick to expound upon how fair and thorough our system. They usually at some point make the comment that for good or bad it is the best in the world. When I hear that comment about “... the best in the world …” stuff it makes me feel like they are telling me there is in fact a good end of a turd to pick up. Every defendant has the right to a jury of their peers This is not entirely true. Municipal courts are not required to hold jury trials yet a person can be sentenced to many years in jail through municipal trials. Does that strike you as wrong? Municipal courts try misdemeanor offenses. Felonies must be tried at the State level. One would think the maximum sentence on a misdemeanor is one year so how is it a person can spend years in jail as a result of a municipal trail-by-judge? There is a sentencing model known as “box-car.” This is the practice of finding a person guilty of two or more misdemeanors and then sentencing them to serve the time consecutively. That means that two sentences of one year would amount to two years spent in a county jail. That is a significant amount of time to spend in jail as a result of a process that put your fate in the hands of a judge rather than a jury. Who are your peers? How do you feel about some one like me telling you who your peers are? I certainly wouldn’t want you to purport to know me well enough to be able to pick my peers so why does the prosecution have any say in the process of picking a jury of my peers? It makes no sense. Lets get rid of this falsehood and tell it like it really is – you might not get a jury and if you do you wont’ get much say in who they are. Prospective jurors are chosen at random from the registered voter roles Take your own survey – ask every one you know or meet in the next month if they have ever been sent a notification requiring them to report for jury duty. If so ask them how many times it has happened. Ask them how many times they have served on a jury. Of the ones who respond more than once ask them how they voted. You may or may not find a person who has served more than once but it is a good bet of the people who tell you they have served more than once they will tell you they voted guilty. When a jury finds a defendant guilty the court KNOWS how you voted. Guess what? You are a “good” juror so your name goes into a special pool of people who are asked back. I was once engaged in a heated but civilized blog argument with a person who had served on “several” juries and thought the system was very fair. When I pointed out to them that I knew they voted guilty and that they were asked back because of this the individual shut up. It had finally sunk in – they knew they had been used by the legal system. I made a convert. The next time the court may be in for a surprise with that juror. It is not as random as they would like for you to believe. Jurors can only decide a case based on the facts of the trial and must vote according to the law – not their hearts Not true. More and more we see judges including in their instructions to juries a definition of what is known as “jury nullification.” Jury nullification amounts to a jury deciding the law is wrong and therefore no offense has been committed resulting in a verdict of not guilty. Judges will flat out lie and tell juries they cannot do this but it is in fact your constitutional right and responsibility to not only judge the accused but also the law. The fact of the matter is the jury can do it. It is absolutely legal and a not guilty verdict arrived at as a result of jury nullification is binding. One of the beauties of our legal system is the fact that a jury not only is in a position to judge a defendant but also judge the law and that is certainly one of the premises our country was founded on – question authority. It is noted in the accompanying PDF file that some political figures have suggested making it a law to inform jurors of their right to nullify. If you feel the law is wrong nullify it. Vote not guilty and stick to your guns. What happens in the jury deliberation room stays in the jury deliberation room Sorry, not true. The court will question jurors after trials to gather information about the trial to help with strategy at the next trial. Does that sound like a court that wants to discover the truth and make sure innocent people go free or does it sound like a court crying sour grapes and doing what it can to make sure the next person goes to jail? You decide. To be fair the information is made available to the defense. Take notes One would think the taking of notes would be encouraged, not so. Some jurisdictions discourage it. Frequently a good deal of the testimony comes from the prosecution witnesses. The courts know people are more likely to write something down if the witness makes a mistake or testifies in a manner that is not believable. The courts want you to forget it so they discourage note taking. Taking notes is not against the law as was evident by the 20/20 special broadcast of the State of Colorado vs. Laura Trujillo. All of the jurors could clearly be seen pen in hand taking notes. Another aspect of taking notes is partly illustrated by an incident that occured in Lebanon Ohio. Click here to read the story. Basically the courts fear the defense may subpoena notes from jurors. If those notes detail anything improper it could be grounds for a mistrial. This is probably the primary reason they don't want jurors writing anything down. Notable quotes “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” - John Jay, 1st Chief Justice SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) 1789 “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” - Samuel Chase, US SCOTUS Justice, 1796 “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes, SCOTUS 1902 “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided” - Harlan Stone, 12 Chief Justice SCOTUS, 1941 “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its perogative to disregard instructions of the judge……..” - US vs. Dougherty, 1972 [LR] These are judges from the highest court in the land telling you to nullify when appropriate. How do you think it sounds when a lowly circuit court judge tells you you can't? That should raise a red flag in your mind about the case you are helping decide. Follow your moral barometer - then the law. If you want to vote guilty because of the law but have a bad feeling in your gut that is your moral compass poking you. People who ignore a compass get lost. Summary The PDF file attached to this paper clearly defines the responsibilities, rights and protections afforded jurors. It is clear the courts are not truthful when they instruct jurors that nullification of the law is not an option. They are very careful not to say it is illegal. That would be grounds for a mistrial. If you serve on a jury be very careful to question everything about the prosecution’s case and remember that the word of a police officer is no better than that of the accused. In fact, every statement from a witness should be closely scrutinized. Inconsistencies are sometimes very subtle. An inconsistent story from a prosecution witness should be considered highly suspect. If you think a witness is lying about one thing you can bet they are lying about something else they said or lying by omission or in other words hiding the truth. Pay close attention to body language. People who answer “yes” but shake their head “no” are probably lying. Nervousness, fidgeting around in a chair and constant touching of various parts of the body like scratching or rubbing the neck are not consistent with honest testimony. Entire books have been written on this subject and they are all very consistent with each other. Body language is as close to a science as it can be. There are several things that happen that make the jury process unfair. These things are subtle and they are by design. The juror is the last stand against government tyranny. According to the courts the prosecution only has to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find yourself on a jury ask yourself one question before casting your vote: “Would I want to be judged based on a reasonable doubt or would I want to judged based on absolute proof?” The standard of a reasonable doubt is too low. Make them prove their case beyond any doubt before you help them ruin a person’s life.