Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd be particularly interested in learning how it works in other countries. Also, would like to hear from any attorneys, paralegals, people that have served on a jury, who have been tried in front of a jury, or just people like myself that fit into none of the above categories, but have always had a strong hunch that the system is flawed.
I have a suspicion, that the reason we don't have a professional juror system in America is because that would make it much more difficult for trial lawyers to manipulate a jury and thereby effect the outcome of a case. If lawyers were no longer able to get the occasional, high-profile, high-fee, albeit guilty client acquitted, regardless of the mounds of evidence stacked against him, this would make them much less important, would simplify a legal system that seems to hide behind a fake complexity, and most importantly, would reduce these courtroom hotshots to mere mortals and greatly lower their fees.
Case in point: If the OJ Simpson murder trial had been tried in front of a professional jury, there is no way that he would have walked away from that double murder rap.
OJ's trial was a circus from the word go, judge who lost control, Hollywood defense attorneys, A DA who tried the case downtown instead of Brentwood (closer to the TV stations), a prosecution team that was over awed by the defense. Don't judge the jury system from that one trial. Remember, agree or not, we're about the only system where the prosecution has to prove guilt, many others the defense has to prove innocence. In others a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion. Why else have a trial?
I don't see why a professional jury system in this country would relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof. Just because our legal system (in your view) is amongst the best in the world does not mean it can't be improved.
Why not have a professional jury system?
Maybe I should have added that I live in L.A., a system, a jury pool that can not convict high profile clients regardless of evidence against them.
A professional jury would violate the entire principle of peers. The law is supposed to be such that ordinary people off the street feel that the law's justice is manifest.
I have a couple of problems with itm though. First of all, the jury hears both sides of the story, which is fine. However, one side of the story is gathered at unlimited expense using the inexhaustible resources of the "people", and the other side is what can be patched together from the resources available to the defendant, who in a great majority of cases, has no resources at all. Again, using the OJ case, Gil Garcetti spent over six million dollars trying to gather enough evidence to convince a jury that OJ was guilty as charged. But the people of LA county did not spend one cent trying to gather any exculpatory evidence on behalf of a citizen presumed innocent. If I am charged with a crime, and the DA spends 6-mill trying to convict me, a jury is little solace.
The other problem I have is that the judge lies about nullification. When I was in a jury poll, one of the potential jurors asked the judge if they could acquit, even if they thought the defendant had actually done what the prosecutor said he did. The judge said "No", which was a lie, because the judge has been around long enough to know about nullification. Yet, as far as I know, no case has ever been appealed on the basis of that blatantly false jury instruction which invariably works against the defendant.
Jurors are also ordered by the judge to disregard certain statements in court, even though the statement might be perfectly factual and highly relevant. Witnesses are sworn to tell "the whole truth", but when they tell more than the judge wants, the jurors are told to disregard it. A jury ought to be able to hear and see everything, and make their judgment accordingly. Not from the judge's Cliff Notes.
I think we need to go in the opposite direction -- do it the way they do it in other countries with a jury system. In France or England they just find the right number of people with no obvious prejudices, weeding out seriously bad choices like the cousin of the defendant and the prosecutor's wife. In our country we weed people out until they've found 12 people who don't know anything about anything, on the assumption that anyone who has read a single news article on the case being tried or watches the TV news is going to be hopelessly prejudiced.
I think professional jurors would get really burned out really fast. Having been on a jury myself once, I know that it's unbelievably boring and frankly, many people can't sit and listen that long without dozing off or getting a whanging headache.
A professional jury would violate the entire principle of peers. The law is supposed to be such that ordinary people off the street feel that the law's justice is manifest.
I have a couple of problems with itm though. First of all, the jury hears both sides of the story, which is fine. However, one side of the story is gathered at unlimited expense using the inexhaustible resources of the "people", and the other side is what can be patched together from the resources available to the defendant, who in a great majority of cases, has no resources at all. Again, using the OJ case, Gil Garcetti spent over six million dollars trying to gather enough evidence to convince a jury that OJ was guilty as charged. But the people of LA county did not spend one cent trying to gather any exculpatory evidence on behalf of a citizen presumed innocent. If I am charged with a crime, and the DA spends 6-mill trying to convict me, a jury is little solace.
The other problem I have is that the judge lies about nullification. When I was in a jury poll, one of the potential jurors asked the judge if they could acquit, even if they thought the defendant had actually done what the prosecutor said he did. The judge said "No", which was a lie, because the judge has been around long enough to know about nullification. Yet, as far as I know, no case has ever been appealed on the basis of that blatantly false jury instruction which invariably works against the defendant.
Jurors are also ordered by the judge to disregard certain statements in court, even though the statement might be perfectly factual and highly relevant. Witnesses are sworn to tell "the whole truth", but when they tell more than the judge wants, the jurors are told to disregard it. A jury ought to be able to hear and see everything, and make their judgment accordingly. Not from the judge's Cliff Notes.
1. Violate the entire principal of peers? Yes, but maybe the principal itself is flawed. These rules were written when it was more feasible to find a jury of twelve peers. How were any of the jurors in the cases of OJ, Phil Spector, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, etc., peers of the defendant? For that matter, how realistic is it to expect a gang banger or a crystal Meth dealer get a jury of his peers?
2. Not only did they not spend one cent gathering exculpatory evidence, it seemed they did not spend one minute considering the evidence. How do 'discovery' rules play into this? Isn't the DA bound to release any and all to the defense?
3. Please explain what 'nullification' means in a trial setting.
4. Yes. If we are here to find "the whole truth" then nothing should be stricken. My understanding is that witnesses are instructed to only answer the questions put to them and to not add extraneous information.
I think we need to go in the opposite direction -- do it the way they do it in other countries with a jury system. In France or England they just find the right number of people with no obvious prejudices, weeding out seriously bad choices like the cousin of the defendant and the prosecutor's wife. In our country we weed people out until they've found 12 people who don't know anything about anything, on the assumption that anyone who has read a single news article on the case being tried or watches the TV news is going to be hopelessly prejudiced.
I think professional jurors would get really burned out really fast. Having been on a jury myself once, I know that it's unbelievably boring and frankly, many people can't sit and listen that long without dozing off or getting a whanging headache.
.
Ok, thank you. So i guess i had it wrong. I thought they had a professional jury system in England. No? Do you know of any country that does?
Ok, thank you. So i guess i had it wrong. I thought they had a professional jury system in England. No? Do you know of any country that does?
I don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
