Juries

The Original Criminal Jury

Jeff Hetzel

Abstract

In early America, the criminal jury decided matters of law. The prosecutor and defense counsel read aloud to the jury from statutes, precedent, and treatises. The presiding judge instructed the jury that it had the power to decide matters of law. Then, the jury deliberated and rendered a verdict based on, among other things, its independent judgment about matters of law, whether that meant the common law, statutes, or the Constitution.

The legal world has for generations failed to recognize the power of the original criminal jury. Those who have not ignored the evidence of the jury’s power over matters of law have tended to interpret it as an early form of jury nullification, by which the jury could review the morality of the prosecution. But a careful examination of early practice reveals that the jury held no more power to nullify than it does today. Rather, the early American jury held the power to do what judges today are expected do—to decide what the law means without deciding its morality.

Many juries in America remain mostly White, prompting states to take action to eliminate racial discrimination in their selection

Washington Post has an article examining different reform efforts around the country to remove racial discrimination in jury selection.

As efforts to reform the criminal justice system at the federal level have largely stalled, state policymakers are opening a new front in the fight to reduce bias in the system by aiming to eliminate racial discrimination in jury selection...

Washingtonpost.com: Many juries in America remain mostly White, prompting states to take action to eliminate racial discrimination in their selection

 

Jurors and English

Interesting Q and A with Jasmine Gonzales Rose about English proficiency and jury service.

Parkrapidenterprise.com: Minnesota jurors must speak English — some worry that's a proxy for race in jury selection

Can I Skip Jury Duty Because of Covid Fears?

The Ethicist in the NY Times Magazine discusses whether you can avoid jury duty because of Covid?

 

Defendant's Conviction Overturned Because of Confederate Memorabilia in the Jury Room (Tennessee v. Gilbert)

In Tennessee v. Gilbert, the defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon.  The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the defendant's conviction based on a violation of the hearsay rule and the jury room decor.  Here, the United Daughters of the Confederacy maintained the Giles County Courthouse to include the jury deliberation room.  As a result, the jury room included a number of mementos of the Confederacy which exposed jurors to extraneous prejudicial information and violated the African-American defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial conducted by an impartial jury, due process, and equal protection under the law.

Book Review: A Felon Among Us: Should Felons Be Allowed on Juries?

Michael Conklin

Abstract

This is a review of James M. Binnall’s new book, Twenty Million Angry Men: The Case for Including Convicted Felons in Our Jury System. The federal government and a majority of states have complete bans on felons serving on juries. Binnall makes a strong case for ending these bans, supported by his own personal experience as a felon who was denied jury service and by his own novel, empirical research. However, in his zeal to advocate for this position, he overstates favorable evidence and ignores potential counterarguments. This Review examines the strengths and weaknesses of Binnall’s arguments and provides missing counterarguments against allowing felons to serve on juries.