The U.S. Jury System: Fairness, Flaws, and Democracy

Origins and Types of the Jury System

In United States courts, the jury is a system by which, in theory, defendants are given a trial that is fair and unbiased. The ideal is that twelve persons from the same peer group as the defendant will be able to deliberate without prejudice on the position of the defense and the outcome of the trial. In reality, however, it is often the case that jury members are unable to arrive at a logical and fair conclusion due to several factors beyond their control, including interference from court systems and the law.

The jury system originated in England on June 15, 1215 (Arnet). At that time, it took the form of a Magna Carta signed by King John, which established the liberties and rights of the English population — among them, the right to a jury trial. Individuals were granted this right under common law, and jurors were obliged to do much the same as they are today in the United States. In order to protect citizens from undemocratic government power and rights violations, jury members — then as now — were required to accurately and logically assess the facts, evaluate justice, and render a judgment for or against the defendant in accordance with those deliberations (Arnet). This is the system that eventually became part of common law court procedures in the United States.

The most common jury type is the civil jury — a jury of peers that deliberates on issues of law, government, and guilt or innocence (Stoicheva). This jury must be carefully selected to ensure an unbiased outcome, and demographic representation should be balanced to ensure that the matter is not considered from a prejudiced point of view.

The grand jury is selected on more or less the same basis as the civil jury, but its duties differ. Grand juries are selected to sit at federal indictments (ABA). These cases often require intensive and long-term investigation, calling for a sustained commitment from the grand jury. Such cases include organized crime, drug conspiracies, and political corruption (ABA). The term for such juries can range from six months to three years, and some states have abandoned the grand jury system altogether. The primary function of a grand jury is investigation and deliberation.

Jury Selection and the Voir Dire Process

According to Holmquist, a jury is selected according to what attorneys believe is beneficial for their clients. Juries are thus chosen according to a relatively biased paradigm in which demographic elements such as race play a significant part. However, federal law prohibits the rejection of a juror on the grounds of observable characteristics such as race or gender. Ideally, then, jurors are selected to represent the full spectrum of the population of which the defendant is a part.

The selection process draws names from databases including voter registration, driver's license, and utilities lists (ABA). The potential jury members thus identified are summoned to appear at the courthouse (Stoicheva). The jury is then selected through questioning by the attorneys of both sides and the trial judge. The answers to these questions are used to assess the potential bias of any prospective juror. This process is known as voir dire, a French phrase meaning "to speak the truth" (Stoicheva). In order to be seated on the jury, a candidate must be accepted by both attorneys according to the established criteria for jury membership.

While current legislation prohibits prejudice in jury selection, it is also true that in the past, potential jurors were dismissed on the grounds of not only race, but also class, gender, and religion. Corrective legislation has since increased both the pool of eligible jurors and the legal standards governing their selection (Stoicheva).

The role of the jury is therefore to ensure that democratic principles are upheld in United States courts. This is demonstrated not only through the function the jury serves at trial, but also through its composition of various demographic groups. Perhaps more than at any previous point in history, demographic balance has been achieved in the jury system.

Research has shown that the public prefers jury trials to determine important issues in court (Mansfield). This preference stems from the public's view of a jury as composed of impartial citizens. In order to uphold this perception, it is important that jury selection, instructions, and the trial process be conducted in a manner that allows truth and justice to prevail. The system must therefore be adjusted in accordance with current laws. Ideally, resources, disclosure, and equality of aim will be provided to a jury in order to ensure maximum fairness (Mansfield). Sadly, however, the necessary conditions are not consistently in place to guarantee the fair trial promised by the Sixth Amendment. In practice, disclosure to the jury is often managed in a way that serves the interests of those in power rather than those of the defendant.

Conclusion: Public Responsibility and Democratic Reform

The benefits of a jury trial appear to outweigh the shortcomings of the system. The shortcomings, while exploited by powerful parties, are subject to change — provided that the public is willing to take responsibility for driving that change. Jury trials of the past demonstrate that manipulative and unjust laws can be overturned. Public responsibility can take the form of self-education regarding the process of law and jury duty. If selected for jury duty, individual jurors can contribute to proactive change by becoming better informed about the legal process, the reforms that are needed, and cases of possible jury manipulation.

In general, the public view of the jury system as an institution serving the best interests of the defendant and of democracy remains accurate. Each juror therefore carries a personal responsibility to enhance the democratic process while, as far as possible, honoring the rule of law that maintains peace and order in the United States.

Sources

Abramson, Jeffrey. We, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. New York: Basic Books, 1994.

American Bar Association. "Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System." November 30, 2003.

Arnet, Gary. "The Informed Juror: How an Informed Jury Helps Safeguard Liberty." In Backwoods Home Magazine, July–August 2003. Article Database: Looksmart Find Articles (www.findarticles.com).

Holmquist, Micah. "Stereotypes Defied in Second Tolliver Trial." In The Chicago Reporter, July 2001. Community Renewal Society, 2001. Article Database: Looksmart Find Articles (www.findarticles.com).

Mansfield, Michael. "Special Report: Trial by Jury." In The Guardian, January 22, 2001. Guardian Newspapers, Ltd., 2003. http://www.guardian.co.uk/jury/article/0,2763,426219,00.html

Stoicheva, Mila. "The American Jury: Bulwark of Democracy." Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago, November 30, 2003. http://www.crfc.org/americanjury