Jury system

SIGNIFICANCE: A right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, trial by jury is a central component of Anglo-American justice and is especially important in criminal trials. The jury system affords those accused of crimes to receive a hearing by a cross section of ordinary citizens in whose hands the determination of guilt or innocence rests.

As of the early twenty-first century, about 90 percent of the jury trials in the world were conducted in the United States. Despite the inadequacies to which legal scholars, criminologists, and legislators have repeatedly pointed in the jury system, the system is more securely entrenched in the American justice system than in any other system in the world. Moreover, despite modifications that various state governments have made in it, one can safely predict that the jury system will remain intact in the United States for many years to come.

The jury system is a fundamental part of the American justice system largely because the authors of the Declaration of Independence listed as one of their major complaints against the British crown government that it was “depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury.” Given this background, the nation’s founders made provision for the jury system when they drew up the U.S. Constitution .

Constitutional Mandates

Article III of the U.S. Constitution promises those accused of any federal crimes—except for impeachment—the right to trial by jury. The Fifth Amendment specifies that no citizen shall be answerable for the commission of any capital or “otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,” thereby placing the judgment of testimony and evidence in the hands of a representative body of the citizenry.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy public trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” The word “impartial” is particularly important in this amendment and has been the basis for empaneling disinterested jurors to hear both criminal and civil cases. The Seventh Amendment states that “in suits of common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” This amendment, which firmly establishes the right to trial by jury, also establishes the all-important guarantee against double jeopardy.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of a jury trial to any defendant accused of a crime, federal or state, that carries a penalty of more than six months’ imprisonment. The protection of this amendment, which has been tested in the courts, is not extended to those accused of minor offenses.

Given constitutional guarantees that resulted from zealous reactions to widespread dissatisfaction with Great Britain’s governance of the colonies, the American judicial system could not easily be moved to abandon the jury system. For all the faults jurists have found with the system, it is so fundamentally a part of American justice that it is inconceivable to envision the American justice system without it.

Grand Juries

Grand juries are bodies that usually consist of between sixteen and twenty-three jurors. They are subdivided into two types of juries, those that charge defendants and those that investigate. The first of these examines evidence brought forth against suspects to determine whether it is sufficient to warrant formal charges that will lead to court trials by other, smaller juries. If the evidence suggests that there is probable cause for trials, indictments are issued that set in motion the machinery for jury trials.

Investigatory grand juries examine evidence against public officials suspected or accused of criminal misconduct in office. They also investigate alleged criminal activity in other segments of society, such as organized crime. They, too, can issue indictments if the testimony and evidence suggest probable cause.

Hearings held by grand juries are closed to the public. The rights of those suspected of violations are protected meticulously, and all suspects enjoy the presumption of innocence. Indictments are not declarations of guilt; they merely indicate the need for further investigation.

Petit Juries

The type of jury with which most Americans are familiar is the petit, or petty, jury, so designated because of its comparatively small size. In the United States, petit juries generally contain twelve jurors and some alternates. However, in some states juries may range in size from six to ten members.

In criminal cases, petit juries decide whether defendants are guilty or innocent of the crimes of which they have been accused. In civil cases, juries establish liability and determine the damages awarded to successful complainants. The courtrooms in which cases are tried by petit juries are generally open to the public. However, judges may limit the numbers of observers and are empowered, under certain circumstances, to clear their courtrooms of spectators when they believe that their presence is disrupting proceedings. All defendants in criminal cases that petit juries hear are deemed innocent until their guilt is proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Presumption of innocence is the keystone of the American justice system. If a reasonable doubt exists about any defendant’s guilt, a verdict of acquittal must be returned.

Coroners’ Juries

In most jurisdictions, coroners’ juries are composed of six members. It is their purpose to hold investigations, termed inquests, into causes of death in cases in which doubt exists. They are frequently called upon, for example, to determine whether deaths are the result of murder or suicide. They work closely with forensic pathologists, who perform autopsies that provide the juries with the information they need to make reasonable judgments.

The Making of Juries

Stringent rules govern how juries are constituted. To begin with, pools of jurors must be representative of the general population of the United States. Moreover, no U.S. citizen may be excluded from a pool of jurors on such arbitrary grounds as race, gender, or class. Furthermore, jurors drawn from the jury pool to judge specific cases must also be representative of the community wherein the indictment has been issued.

In the distant past, juror pools were drawn only from members of communities who owned property. However, that method of selection was successfully challenged by those who contended that it imposed a class distinction upon jury selection. Eventually, jury pools came to be drawn from voting rolls. Before ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote in all states in 1920, however, women were excluded from the voting rolls in most states. Until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 , voting rolls in many southern states held the names of few black voters, making it impossible to impanel truly representative juries in those states.

Toward the end of the twentieth century, other methods began to be employed to develop pools of jurors. The most common of these draws pools from lists of licensed drivers as well as registered voters. This method broadened substantially the composition of jury pools and constituted a major advance toward making juries more representative of the general population than they had previously been.

In deciding who will serve on juries slated to hear specific cases, in a process known as voir dire, attorneys for both defense and prosecution question potential jurors drawn from the pool. The selection of appropriate juries is essential to the successful defense or prosecution of any case. Effective attorneys select juries with great care and deliberation, sometimes employing consultants specially trained in jury selection to guide them toward the best choices. When attorney questioning uncovers obvious biases that might cloud jurors’ objectivity or give reason to suspect that potential jurors have already reached conclusions about the cases to be tried, attorneys on either side may reject them as jurors. Such dismissals are called objections for cause. Attorneys are permitted an unlimited number of such objections.

Attorneys are also allowed limited numbers of peremptory challenges. These challenges do not require them to offer any explanations or justifications to the courts. For example, an attorney may legitimately issue a peremptory challenge to exclude a retiree dependent upon investment income in a trial of a stockbroker accused of fraudulent dealings with elderly clients. Likewise, an attorney might exclude the president of a local temperance organization from serving on a jury in a drunk driving case. However, peremptory challenges that are clearly made on the basis of race or gender may lead to mistrials.

Jury Verdicts

In most jurisdictions, decisions to find defendants guilty in criminal cases must be unanimous. If even a single juror votes against conviction and cannot be persuaded in subsequent jury balloting to change the vote, a deadlock is declared in the trial and a hung jury is said to exist. There are no official limits on how many ballots juries may take during their deliberations.

When jury deliberations result in hung juries, defendants in the cases are still presumed innocent. However, the accusations against them remain intact. Prosecutors may later elect to reopen their cases and hold new trials. However, in many instances the press of other cases makes prosecutors reluctant to do so. Prosecutors may also come under administrative pressures to consider costs to the government over the pursuit of justice. Some jurisdictions have sought to overcome the problem of hung juries by allowing specified majority votes of guilty—often ten out of twelve—to produce convictions. In Scotland, it has long taken only a simple majority vote to convict.

The secrecy of what goes on in jury rooms generally remains sacrosanct after trials. Although jurors may be individually polled after their foreperson announces their verdict, they are under no obligation to explain their votes to anyone at any time.

Roots of the Jury System

The American jury system is a product of a millennium of English and American history. It originated in medieval England and grew out of the development of codified laws and statutes that came to be accepted by society to replace or at least supplement many of the controls that earlier resided in the family, whose eldest male member usually served a judicial function. The rules that governed such a system were often capricious, whereas law as society conceives it is meant to be uniform, and justice as society conceives it is ideally blind.

When the Norman ruler William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, right (which was often determined by combat) did not always triumph over might. Persons who accused others of crimes besmirched the integrity of the other persons, who then might feel honor-bound to engage in combat with their accusers to avenge the insults. In such situations, might was right. The stronger combatants won, regardless of whose case was more valid in their disputes.

In many societies, trial by ordeal was a popular form of determining guilt or innocence until three or four centuries ago. Accused persons who could walk over glowing embers without blistering their feet or carry several pounds of hot coals in their hands without injury were considered innocent of all charges against them. Innocence, needless to say, was seldom the outcome in such primitive judicial procedures.

Before the year 1000, England’s King Ethelred I, recognizing that the English system of justice was deficient, appointed twelve of his most trusted followers to investigate illegal activities and make formal accusations against suspects, much as grand juries do in modern society. After their evidence was heard, guilty votes by at least eight of the twelve resulted in convictions. It is probably this early English model of twelve-man juries that eventually led to twelve members being the standard for modern petit juries in the United States.

In the Anglo-Saxon era, with society centered in small villages or feudal keeps, people knew one another well. As early as 850, England’s King Alfred divided every community in his domain into units of ten families that were mutually responsible for one another’s behavior. Each ten groups of such families, or “tithings,” constituted a judicial unit called a “hundred.” County courts run by sheriffs met twice a year to hear cases brought by the “hundredors,” as they were called. Cases were heard by twelve members of the hundredors who were selected because of their personal knowledge of each case being tried.

Among the early British, reputation carried great weight and honor was valued above all else. If people well respected in the community were accused of crimes by others, they either owned up to the accusations and made amends or, upon their honor, vowed innocence. Such vows were readily accepted from people who were known to be honest. However, strangers who vowed innocence were often subjected to ordeals to prove their claims.

When groups of people made accusations, the accused were expected to find eleven thanes who would swear to their honesty and honor. If they could not persuade that many to testify, they were usually subjected to physical ordeals and, predictably, adjudged guilty. These earliest juries of thanes selected by the accused were quite opposite to the impartial juries that are fundamental to modern jury systems. They were selected because they had already made up their minds and were predisposed in favor of the defendants. Under modern judicial systems, when prospective jurors are found to have any bias for or against defendants, they are precluded from serving. Studies of judicial decisions in England between 1550 and 1750 reveal that during those two centuries, juries consistently voted to acquit people they knew and voted to convict people they did not know.

Objections to the Jury System

The jury system has been tried and abandoned in many countries. Generally it has been observed that whenever a nation attempts to impose such a jury system upon its established judicial system, the attempt soon fails. In such situations, modifications in the system are usually so great as to make it almost unrecognizable as a jury system. For example, in France, Germany, and Denmark, experiments with juries were eventually replaced by trial systems that involve judges and lay assessors who help to weigh evidence.

Outside the United States, the jury system seems most firmly entrenched in Great Britain, where it was originally established and refined quite early. In Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, jury systems are strong because they were established as the original system in those countries—all of which inherited the British legal system.

A major objection to trial by jury is that many jurors lack the intelligence, backgrounds, or stamina to assess effectively evidence given within a legal context. This objection has been heard increasingly as law cases have placed increasing demands on jurors, expecting them to understand highly technical evidence, such as the results of polygraph tests, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing, and other modern laboratory procedures that are now applied to gathering and evaluating evidence.

Another type of complaint about the jury system is the proven fact that some jurors can be bribed by parties to the cases being tried. This problem can be largely eliminated by sequestering juries, which is sometimes done in highly publicized trials. In such trials, juries are sometimes cut off from communication with the outside world for periods lasting several months. In cases that involve organized crime , jurors may have ample cause to fear for their physical welfare and safety during and after trials. On the other hand, jurors assigned to high-profile cases are occasionally eager to serve because they have ulterior motives, such as plans to profit from their experience after the trials by writing books or taking to the television talk-show circuit.

Sometimes, potentially competent jurors are excused because of the disruptions to their lives that long sequestration might cause them. Occasionally, members of sequestered juries finish their service and find that they have lost their jobs or that their marriages or other personal relationships are foundering.

Criticism has also been directed toward juries in civil cases that award unrealistically high settlements to complainants whose cases succeed. Appellate courts have often reduced or eliminated some of the most unrealistic settlements, but appealing a verdict is a cumbersome process that is costly to the complainants, the defendants, and the government.

A number of factors have come together in the twenty-first century to severely reduce the number of jury trials that actually make it to court. Between 1962 and 2013, the number of cases that were heard by a jury fell from 5.5 percent to 0.8 percent. In 2020, only 2 percent of federal trials made it to the jury stage. The cost of a jury trial, combined with pressure to settle cases from defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges, were seen as two of the main reason for the drop. Mandatory sentencing guidelines were also another factor.

Bibliography

Abramson, Jeffrey. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 2000.

Evans, Emanuella. "Jury Trials Are Disappearing. Here’s Why." Injustice Watch, 17 Feb. 2021, www.injusticewatch.org/criminal-courts/2021/disappearing-jury-trials-study/. Accessed 5 July 2024.

Holland, Barbara. “Do You Swear that You Will Well and Truly Try . . . ?” Smithsonian March 1995, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/do-you-swear-that-you-will-well-and-truly-try-1-32017765/. Accessed 5 July 2024.

Lesser, Maximus A., and William S. Hein. The Historical Development of the Jury System. Buffalo: W. S. Hein, 1992.

Schwartz, Victor E., et al. Safeguarding the Right to a Representative Jury: The Need for Improved Jury Service Laws. Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest, 2003.

"Types of Juries." United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/types-juries. Accessed 5 July 2024.