Jury Selection, Racial Bias, and DNA Evidence in U.S. Courts

The Role of Juries in American Democracy

There is rarely any debate about the pivotal role of juries in the United States' system of justice. The jury is the "foundation of the American justice system" and is "vital to our democracy and our system of checks and balances," according to the American Judicature Society (AJS). The AJS further describes the jury system as "the fundamental safeguard of our constitutional liberties." Certainly the system is not perfect and can be manipulated by shrewd lawyers in some cases, but fair outcomes are possible, and those outcomes depend on the quality of the jurors chosen to serve (AJS).

Because jurors are sworn to protect the rights of citizens accused of wrongdoing, and because jurors and judges work together—in a kind of legal teamwork—to "put into practice the principles of our great heritage of freedom," this topic is important and worthy of research (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York). Students paying attention to legal issues in other countries can see that justice is often non-existent: people are charged with crimes and face arbitrary standards with little chance of fairness. In Western societies, and in America specifically, the founding fathers created a democracy that, while not perfect, allows the greatest possibility for justice and fairness, regardless of a citizen's ethnicity, religion, or race.

While jury service is important and meaningful in a democratic society, for many Americans it is "inconvenient or even a bit of a burden," the AJS acknowledges. However, serving on a jury is a "small price to pay for the privileges and protections of our government," and with freedom and constitutionally guaranteed rights come responsibilities. The AJS explains that all Americans are "partners and shareholders in the state and the nation," and jurors owe it to their fellow citizens to serve when called by their local judicial jurisdiction (AJS).

How Jurors Are Summoned and Excused

Jurors are called to serve based on driver's license registration, voter registration lists, telephone directories, and public utility records. Questions a prospective juror may expect include: Are you a U.S. citizen over 18 years of age? Have you ever been convicted of a felony? Where were you born? Do you speak fluent English? Have you ever been accused of racial bias? What kind of work do you do?

Each side—prosecution and defense—may remove any juror who appears to exhibit bias toward the accused or a witness. Each side is given a fixed number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Jurors can be sequestered to prevent contact with media coverage of the case, and the verdict must be unanimous.

Business Insider lists several grounds on which a prospective juror might be excused from duty: (a) stating that one has already formed an opinion about the case; (b) demonstrating personal involvement related to the case; (c) in a murder case, expressing opposition to the death penalty; (d) showing that jury service would seriously disrupt a self-employed person's livelihood; and (e) establishing that a disability would make service unduly burdensome (Fuchs, 2012). As the AJS notes, jurors do not need "knowledge of the law or special skills to serve—they must use common sense, keep an open mind, and be fair, impartial and honest" (AJS).

Jury Selection in the O.J. Simpson Trial

The O.J. Simpson murder trial provides a striking example of how jury selection can be strategically shaped to favor the accused. During voir dire, prospective jurors were asked questions such as: "Have you ever had any personal interaction with a celebrity?" "Please name a person for whom you are a great fan." "Do you have any affiliation with professional sports?" "Have you ever experienced domestic violence in your home?" "Do you think using physical force on a fellow family member is sometimes justified?" "How do you feel about interracial marriage?" "Before the Simpson case, did you read any books, articles, or magazines concerning DNA analysis?" "Do you watch early evening tabloid news programs such as Hard Copy or A Current Affair?" (umkc.edu).

Jury selection in the Simpson case lasted two months and was highly contentious. The defense consultant "coordinated massive data on each one of the jury finalists." The jury that ultimately returned a "not guilty" verdict was composed of eight Black jurors, two Latino jurors, one juror of half-Caucasian and half-Native American heritage, and one Caucasian female (umkc.edu). Defense attorney Johnnie Cochran sought to have the trial held in downtown Los Angeles rather than in Santa Monica—where the killings took place—because in Santa Monica the jury "would have been mostly white" (umkc.edu).

Poll data at the time showed that most white Americans believed Simpson was guilty, while most Black Americans believed he was innocent. Securing a downtown Los Angeles jury therefore meant most jurors would be Black (umkc.edu). In his closing arguments, Cochran said, "Keep your eyes on the prize," signaling that the goal was to secure an acquittal despite evidence that Simpson's blood had been found at the murder scene, in his car, and in his driveway. The final jury composition revealed significant characteristics: none of the jurors read a newspaper regularly, but eight watched tabloid television shows; five believed it was acceptable to use physical force on a family member; five reported a negative experience with police; and nine believed that Simpson's status as a professional athlete made him less likely to also be a murderer (umkc.edu).

Conclusion: Racial Bias and the Imperative of Fair Jury Selection

Looking at the composition of juries in Hunt's trials—juxtaposed with Simpson's jury of mostly Black members—it is clear that bias entered into both cases. Of the sixty jurors and alternates across four different trials in the Hunt proceedings, "only one was black" (Ross, 181). One clear conclusion emerges from these two cases: racial bias persists in the justice system, and that system must ensure that DNA evidence is properly collected and analyzed so that innocent people are not imprisoned because of the color of their skin. It is equally essential that jury selection prioritize fairness—to victims and to the accused alike—as a cornerstone of the American system of justice.

Works Cited

American Judicature Society. (2010). Role of the Juror. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.ajs.org.

Fuchs, E. (2012). Nine ways to get out of jury duty. Business Insider. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com.

Ross, D.D. (2014). Bias in the box: For capital juries across America, race still plays a role in who gets to serve. Virginia Quarterly Review, 90(4), 178–201.

United States District Court. (2009). Importance of jury service. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from

University of Missouri–Kansas City. (2001). Selection of the jury. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://law2.umkc.edu.