
October 19th / 21st, 2007
"Jury System Should Change"
A Virginia man and his current spouse were sued in civil court by his
ex-wife who also used to be his former business partner. The ex-wife claimed the
man had fraudulently conveyed funds to his new wife. The case was extremely
complex, involving both corporate and marital law. The jury of the man’s
peers consisted of just two men. To no one’s surprise, the skewed jury ignored
the facts in evidence, and returned a verdict against the man, ordering him
to pay his ex-wife $200,000. The judge then had to overturn the jury verdict
because it had been rendered on emotion rather than evidence. This is but one
example of why systematic jury reform is needed.
Juries originated in England during the reign of Henry II, and were first
used to deal with census taking and tax collection. Later the system evolved
into a process where jurors helped to settle disputes among neighbors. Those
jurors all knew the litigants, and they also had some knowledge of the
dispute prior to trial. Such knowledge was considered an asset to both defendant
and plaintiff, who willingly put their faith in a true jury of their peers.
In our country, potential jurors are disqualified if they know anything
about the litigants or the case. Meanwhile, attorneys have the right to strike
a certain number of the jury pool without having to show cause, which results
in disqualification of additional jurors who might have been peers of the
defendant.
Today there are three basic schools of thought with regards to the American
jury system. Those who want to preserve the status quo. Those who wish to
reform the existing system. And, those who just want to eliminate juries
altogether.
U.S. District Judge William Young of Massachusetts is a preservationist.
According to Floridabar.org, he is proud of the fact that 90% of the jury
trials in the world take place in the United States, but he is concerned that
Americans are shirking their duty to serve as jurors.
Speaking to a Florida Bar Association luncheon earlier this summer, Young
warned, “the American jury system is dying”. I am reminded of the scene in
Star Trek VI where Spock tells Kirk that the Klingon planet is in peril and
that his archenemies are in danger of dying. Kirk shouted back, “Let them die!”.
Judge Young is well-intentioned, but he neglected to tell the Florida group
that England did away with juries in civil cases nearly 60 years ago. Thus,
preserving a flawed system here in America is nothing of which to be proud.
The Brits realized long ago what Judge Young has yet to admit. Citizen
jurors cannot competently adjudicate complex civil cases involving dissolution of
corporate entities and other multi-layered matters.
Vikram David Amar is a reformist. Writing for Findlaw.com, Amar argues
that the jury system is necessary, but doesn’t work properly because of the
aforementioned interference by lawyers who abuse the peremptory strike rule to
effectively deny qualified jurors. Amar says that attorneys “manipulate
demographics and chisel an unprecedented panel out of a representative pool.”
However, Amar believes jurors should represent the people, not the parties,
and on that point, he couldn’t be more wrong. If I am being falsely accused
of stealing property from a vindictive plaintiff, I would want jurors who are
my age, and who have had similar life experiences to mine. In other words, I
want a jury more like the ones back in Old England where knowledge of the
case and the litigants was a prerequisite, not a disqualifier.
In any event, there are those of us who would like to see the jury system
abolished altogether, at least for civil litigation. Judge Hugh Bownes
writing for Piercelaw.edu, makes the argument that we should follow the British
model, and utilize juries for criminal cases exclusively. He also reminds us
that jurors in this country are never asked to find what the facts are. Bownes
says that jurors are only asked to determine what “probably” happened, and
that is a matter best left to judges who are experienced in the art of
analyzing facts and fashioning a fair remedy.
The seventh Amendment created the jury system in America, and it must now be
modified so as to eliminate juries from complex civil cases.
I for one, trust judges to do the right thing, and, if they slip up, I can
simply appeal their ruling. We don’t need unqualified, uneducated jurors
trying to decide complicated matters involving parties who they know nothing
about, and facts which they cannot comprehend.
Ignorance is OK when used to second-guess Judge Judy from the comfort of
home, but it is not bliss when applied in a real court. I rest my case.
|