Criminal justice debt has aggressively metastasized throughout the criminal system. A bewildering array of fees, fines, court costs, non-payment penalties, and high interest rates have turned criminal process into a booming revenue center for state courts and corrections. As criminal justice administrative costs have skyrocketed, the burden to fund the system has fallen largely on the system’s users, primarily poor or indigent, who often cannot pay their burden. Unpaid criminal justice debt often leads to actual incarceration or substantial punitive fines, which turns rapidly into “punishment.” Such punishment at the hands of a court, bureaucracy, or private entity compromises the Sixth Amendment right to have all punishment imposed by a jury. This Article explores the netherworld of criminal justice debt and analyzes implications for the Sixth Amendment jury trial right, offering a new way to attack the problem. The specter of “cash-register justice,” which overwhelmingly affects the poor and dispossessed, perpetuates hidden inequities within the criminal justice system. I offer solutions rooted in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court’s May 2016 decision in Foster v. Chatman involved smoking-gun evidence that the State of Georgia discriminated against African-Americans in jury selection during Foster’s 1987 capital trial. Foster was decided on the thirtieth anniversary of Batson v. Kentucky, the first in the line of cases to prohibit striking prospective jurors on the basis of their race or gender. But the evidence of discrimination for Batson challenges is rarely so obvious and available as it was in Foster.
Where litigants have struggled to produce evidence of discrimination in individual cases, empirical studies have been able to assess jury selection practices through a broader lens. This Article uses original data gathered from trial transcripts to examine race- and gender-related exclusion of potential jurors during several stages of jury selection in a set of 35 South Carolina cases that resulted in death sentences from 1997 to 2012. It includes observations for over 3,000 venire members for gender and observations for over 1,000 venire members for race. This is one of few studies to examine the use of peremptory strikes in actual trials; no previous studies of this magnitude have examined this topic in South Carolina.
Consistent with comparable studies, this study’s results revealed that white and black potential jurors had substantially different experiences on their path to the jury box, while gender played a subtler role. Findings included that prosecutors used peremptory strikes against 35% of eligible African-American venire members, compared to 12% of eligible white venire members, and that the death-qualification process impeded a substantial number of African-Americans from serving. These disparities contributed to overrepresentation of whites on the juries. The study’s findings implicate the fairness of some of South Carolina’s current death row inmates, in addition to further buttressing the argument that capital conviction and sentencing procedures are incompatible with the need for representative and impartial juries.
Abstract: Early in this nation’s history, the civil jury was the most important institutional check on biased and corrupt judges. Recently, concerns about judicial bias, especially in elected state judiciaries, have intensified as new studies demonstrate the extent of that bias. But the jury of Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson is nowhere to be found. In fact, the civil jury is virtually dead. It is used in less than 1% of all civil cases, and even when it makes a rare appearance, the jury’s powers have been significantly curtailed.
This article argues that we must reimagine the civil jury to match the framework of modern civil litigation and modern civil procedure. Civil litigation in the 21st century revolves around pre-trial practice, including the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment. Today, judges alone decide those dispositive motions. And when the judges deciding these motions are biased, the jury is conspicuously absent. I propose that jurors serve alongside judges to decide fact-intensive dispositive motions on what I call Hybrid Judicial Panels. This proposal restores the jury’s historical power to control biased judges, and offers the people themselves a renewed role in modern civil litigation.
The Australian state of Victoria has, over the past thirty years, introduced and made numerous reforms to a set of jury directions which purport to address concerns that rape trials do not adequately respond to the reality of sexual offending in the community. In this article we argue that the theatrical nature of the trial process, in combination with a set of problematic assumptions which preclude the capacity for women to “consent” or “refuse consent”, result in the reassertion of traditional rape narratives that the jury directions alone are not adequate to shift.
The Constitution protects us from criminal conviction unless the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, many of our nation’s trial courts will conclude their burden of proof instructions by telling jurors not to evaluate the evidence for doubt, but instead “to search for the truth” of what they think really happened.
In our previously published study, we empirically demonstrated that such truth-related language lowers the state’s burden of proof below the constitutionally-guaranteed reasonable doubt standard. In this article, we discuss the results of our new empirical study — a conceptual replication and extension of our previous work.
In our new study, we again found a statistically significant difference in conviction rates between mock jurors who were properly instructed on reasonable doubt, and mock jurors who were instead instructed “to search for the truth.” Additionally, we identified a cognitive link between the truth-related jury instruction and the increased conviction rate.
More specifically, mock jurors who were instructed “to search for the truth” were nearly twice as likely to mistakenly believe they could convict the defendant even if they had a reasonable doubt about his guilt. Further, mock jurors who held this mistaken belief actually voted to convict the defendant at a rate 2.5 times higher than those who correctly understood the burden of proof.
Our original study, our successful replication, and our newly discovered cognitive explanation for juror behavior combine to provide powerful evidence that truth-related language diminishes the constitutionally-mandated burden of proof. Therefore, in order to protect our Due Process rights, courts should immediately remove such truth-related language from their burden of proof jury instructions
The criminal justice system has long held the view that judges are more capable than jurors of disregarding inadmissible prejudicial material. One consequence of this is the differential treatment of judges and jurors in respect of actual or potential exposure, via conventional or social media, to publicity which is prejudicial to a defendant. This article examines psycho-legal research findings which undermine the assumption upon which this differential treatment of judge and jury is based. It then identifies a number of questions which merit further attention in light of these findings.
The practice of judicial comment on the evidence has traditionally been the main form of jury control. Previous scholarly work has focused on the loss of the power in state courts, and has attributed the decline of judicial comment to a strict separation of functions between judge and jury and to regional differences in legal culture. This article examines two jurisdictions in which the power of comment long remained strong, at least in theory: the High Court of England, with its predecessors, and the federal courts in the United States. In both jurisdictions, judicial power to comment has been limited and in practice reduced, in the federal courts severely. The article reveals that this limitation developed with the advent of courts of appeal with separate personnel and especially of appeals in criminal cases.
Lack of appeal, or limited appeal, has been a distinctive trait of common law systems, particularly in criminal cases. There was no appeal as of right in criminal cases until 1907 in England, and 1889 in the federal courts. In the federal system, the early movements to allow appeals in criminal cases and to limit judicial comment on evidence focused on controlling a particular judge: Isaac Parker, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, who presided over more than 100 trials for capital crimes occurring in the Indian Territory from 1875 to 1896.
Almost thirty years ago, in Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court held that prosecutors could not strike prospective jurors on account of the jurors’ race. In the most technical sense, striking a juror because of an arrest record could be considered “race neutral.” In practice, however, prosecutors use this reason to strike jurors to achieve the very end that Batson sought to prevent — a deliberately whiter jury. This Article explores whether, because of the racially disproportionate arrest rates of African Americans and Latinos compared to Whites, using a peremptory strike on a juror who is a person of color because of his arrest record or that of his loved ones, is contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Batson.
Despite Batson, discrimination by prosecutors in jury selection persists. Because this type of discrimination can easily be masked with an excuse that on its face is race neutral, examining whether an excuse like a juror’s arrest records is one that is truly race neutral is imperative. This Article will explore whether, because of the racially disproportionate arrest rates of African Americans and Latinos compared to Whites, using a peremptory strike on a juror who is a person of color because of his arrest record or that of his loved ones, is contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Batson. Part I examines how race affects the likelihood that a person will have an arrest record. Part II provides background regarding jury selection and Part III examines Batson and its progeny. Part IV discusses the constitutionality of strikes based on arrest records. This Article concludes with the common sense suggestion that questions about arrests during voir dire should be precluded, as should the practice of using a person’s arrest record as the sole basis for the exercise of peremptory strikes.
This Article proposes that patent litigation could be greatly improved by trying complex patent cases before specialized juries, composed of individuals who are skilled in the art that the asserted patent pertains to. After explaining why such specialized patent juries would be both beneficial and constitutional, this Article sets forth a concrete proposal for impaneling such specialized juries. Specifically, this Article proposes that the Federal government offer one-year jury commissions to technically-skilled individuals, for a competitive salary. The cost of their salaries would be offset by modest surcharges on patent litigants — yet specialized juries would streamline and simplify patent trials, thus bringing cost savings to litigants that would largely or entirely offset the cost of the surcharges. To test the feasibility of this Article’s proposal, 389 undergraduate and graduate students at sixteen U.S. colleges and universities were surveyed. Each survey respondent was pursuing a degree in one of the two broad areas that spawn much complex patent litigation: computer science/electrical engineering or the life sciences. Over 73% of respondents indicated that they would “seriously consider” a one-year post-graduation term of patent jury service under the terms of this Article’s proposal. These data suggest that it would be feasible for the Federal government to recruit a large cadre of specialized jurors to hear complex patent cases, in accordance with this Article’s proposal.
Many Americans insisted on their traditional rights as Englishmen in the conflict with Britain before and after declaring independence. Magna Carta — particularly the provisions concerning the “law of the land” and “judgment of his peers” — embodied fundamental rights of Englishmen that American revolutionaries were willing to fight to protect. As Edward Coke had found more than a century before, American revolutionaries understood that invoking such an ancient document inspired resistance to authority.
Americans cherished Magna Carta most because of its association with jury trial. Juries had proved useful to Americans in their conflict with Britain. Colonial American juries had nullified the law of seditious libel, customs taxes, and debts to British merchants. It was no wonder Americans held the jury in high esteem, at least until they had to run their own governments. Americans filled their constitutions, both federal and state, with rights to jury trial. Several American states even included translations of provisions from Magna Carta in their constitutions, enshrining the “judgment of his peers.” Once Americans had achieved independence and formed the new republics, judges faced the task of interpreting these thirteenth-century provisions as eighteenth- and nineteenth-century law. American judges quoted Blackstone and historical treatises. Through the nineteenth century, however, American enthusiasm for juries waned. The much-repeated phrases from Magna Carta became a flimsy screen, masking the steady decline of jury power.