CrimLaw

Well, JuryLaw is going down (not enough time or enough stories) - Here's the one really serious post I have put up recently:

An article offering fixes for the jury system:

He makes five points and I will address each briefly.

The First Reform: Keep Highly Educated Jurors in the Pool

I am with him on this one. I've done a number of jury trials and have yet to see a doctor, cleric, accountant, or lawyer in any of the pools. Called for jury duty once myself I sent in the brief questionare and got an excuse back because I am an attorney. Personally, I don't think anyone should be excused from duty unless they are police or firemen, judges or people who actually work for the courts.

The Second: Eliminate Peremptories

As I've said previously on this blawg: I used to think the process was better off without peremptory strikes until I actually started doing jury trials and saw a couple people glaring with a baleful eye at my client while swearing that they would be entirely fair in their actions as a juror. How else do you deal with that person? And there seems to be one or two on every single jury.

The Third: Restrict "For Cause" Challenges

Hmmm . . . I don't know what "for cause" strikes are like where this guy practices but where I practice they generally go like this:

Me: Judge, I have to ask to strike Mrs. Smith.

Judge: "Mrs. Smith, I know that you told the defense attorney that you are married to the police chief and your two sons are in the police academy, and that one of your cousins was assaulted by someone who looked just like the defendant and that you think the defendant has beady eyes, but do you think you can set all that aside and follow the law as I explain it to you?"

Juror: "Why, yes sir, I can do that."

Judge: "No reason to strike this lady, defense counsel."

The Fourth Reform: Restore the Notion of Duty, and the Sense of Exercising a Right

Throw 'em in jail if they don't come to do their jury duty.

The Fifth (Possible) Reform: Relax Unanimity?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. I reject the premise under which this is offered: that there is no truth powerful enough to cut across lines of class, race, religion, etc. Why would anyone think that? Every day juries convict or acquit by finding that truth. And let's be honest here. Juries, even though they are required to reach unanimous decisions, convict far more often than they acquit or hang.