Dwyer, W. 2014. In the hands of the people: The trial jury’s origins, triumphs, troubles, and future in American democracy. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books. In this book, Dwyer makes the case that juries are just as fundamental and necessary an institution to democracy as voting itself. Dwyer acknowledges that the greater complexity of court cases today have generated calls in some quarters for juries to be eliminated. High-profile acquittals of celebrities have similarly shaken faith in the jury system. Dwyer attempts to show why such incidents have occurred while still demonstrating that the Founding Fathers viewed jury trials as vital to American democracy. He begins with a history of how trials were decided throughout history, including the trial-by-ordeal of the Middle Ages to the jury system today. The jury has become more democratic than ever before—for many centuries, juries were solely made up of males—and this may be another reason why there is greater hostility to juries in contemporary society. But this should be seen as the jury’s strength, namely as America grows more diverse, the jury itself grows more diverse. This is necessary, given the need for pluralism and multiplicities of perspective in meting out justice. Ultimately the decision of a judge is only the decision of one individual who may have his or her own biases. Judges are not oracles.

Grimes, J. 2014. The importance of trial by jury. The Huffington Post. Available from: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jonathan-grimes/importance-of-trial-by- jury_b_4965104.html

The system of trial by jury has been under particular onslaught in recent years. In the United Kingdom, the Lord Chief Justice suggested doing away with the option to have a jury trial entirely in the case of so-called minor offences and complex frauds. The rationale behind eschewing jury trials for minor offenses is that assembling an unbiased jury is complex and expensive and many people do not wish to serve on juries anyway and regard it as an inconvenience to them personally. The rationale for doing away with juries on complex cases, such as accounting fraud and medical malpractices, is that the intricate aspects of the alleged crime are so specific and challenging to understand that juries will make decisions primarily based upon emotions rather than upon the technical details of the case. Still, in a democratic society, Grimes argues, juries are vital. The majority of the public still believes that juries make better and fairer decisions than judges and inject needed compassion into what can be a cold and distanced criminal justice system. Jurors are more apt to consider human elements when making decisions in so-called complex cases and even minor offenses may have major implications for an ordinary citizen.

McLynn, F. 2016. Famous trials: Cases that made history. Crux Publishing Ltd.

This book compares the different processes and outcomes of a variety of historical trials, some of which had juries and others of which did not. Some of the most famous jury trials include...

It is essential to review these historical trials to accurately assess the relative merits of the jury system. McLynn does not have a particular position on the jury system and whether it is good or bad; rather he reviews a series of trials which indicates both its negative and positive aspects. In some trials, juries were clearly swayed by sensationalism and fear, as in the case of Socrates and the Rosenbergs; in other cases they did not rise above conventional morality as in the case of Oscar Wilde. Still, in cases such as Leopold and Loeb, Clarence Darrow was able to persuade the jury not to sentence the young defendants to death, despite the fact that both boys committed a senseless crime for apparently no reason.
Mendelle, P. 2010.Why juries work best. The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/21/juries-work-best-research [1 Apr 2018]

According to the author, a practicing lawyer, despite the fact that he has seen jurors over the course of his life with many different levels of experience and expertise, for the most part he states that jurors do make the right decisions. Although individual jurors may have prejudices and make bad decisions on bad criteria, overall, the faults of these individuals are outweighed by the strengths of the jury system as a whole. There is a reason that there are 12 jurors in an entire jury, and the jury can talk amongst itself and weigh the facts of the case. The concept of a jury trial is also fundamental to democracy. Juries are the ways in which the voices of the people may be heard in the judicial system, and act as an important check and balance on unrestrained judicial power. It is important to insert the voice of the common man or woman into the court system, even as cases grow in complexity. Finally, if there is no faith in the ability of the ordinary person to make decisions about important matters, such as capital cases, then how can ordinary people be trusted to make good voting decisions?

Melsheimer, T. & Smith, C. 2017. On the jury trial: Principles and practices for effective advocacy. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press.

This book is primarily intended for lawyers and aspiring lawyers. However, it yields valuable insight into how lawyers view juries and assemble them to bring the best possible outcome for their client. This includes using voir dire and preparing witnesses to be persuasive to particular members of the jury. For example, someone representing someone who is an alleged victim of a crime may wish to avoid people who may lack empathy for persons in difficult circumstances and view all mistakes as failures of personal responsibility. The adversarial process suggests that lawyers may present accurate but biased content to juries to enable juries to make the best decisions. Learning about how lawyers do this is an important part of evaluating the relative…