Is the jury system the best/fairest?

[IIOY]

I evolved to dislike juries when I was a practicing attorney. I think too many decisions are based upon emotion and gut feelings, and there is lack of dispassion. Plus, few if any juries actually consist of "peers." Now, this is not to say that I think all judges are beacons of wisdom, but given my choice, I'd go before a judge rather than a jury.

[pamela]

Do juries always make the right decisions? Probably not. I think their validity is even more suspect in highly technical cases. However, I think they are preferable over judges because they are constantly changing and are less likely to be corrupted by long standing relationships between judges/lawyers/prosecutors/police.

[ECB]

Feb 19, 2013 10:17:02 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I evolved to dislike juries when I was a practicing attorney. I think too many decisions are based upon emotion and gut feelings, and there is lack of dispassion. Plus, few if any juries actually consist of "peers." Now, this is not to say that I think all judges are beacons of wisdom, but given my choice, I'd go before a judge rather than a jury.

Not an attorney, but I've had the same thoughts.  Having sat in on jury pools, and once having served on one for a minor fender bender - I was like "I don't think I'd want a jury deciding my fate". 

Plus, it seems like so many people see jury duty as a burden, instead of being proud of doing their part.  I don't want people who are annoyed to be on a jury deciding my fate!

[mx27]

some civil cases are tried by judges.

anyway, i think there are pros and cons to both systems. i don't think juries are so bad that i would want to switch to a system in which all trials are tried by judges.

[IIOY]

Feb 19, 2013 10:24:22 GMT -5 ECB said:

Feb 19, 2013 10:17:02 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I evolved to dislike juries when I was a practicing attorney. I think too many decisions are based upon emotion and gut feelings, and there is lack of dispassion. Plus, few if any juries actually consist of "peers." Now, this is not to say that I think all judges are beacons of wisdom, but given my choice, I'd go before a judge rather than a jury.

Not an attorney, but I've had the same thoughts.  Having sat in on jury pools, and once having served on one for a minor fender bender - I was like "I don't think I'd want a jury deciding my fate". 

One of the problems is that jury members will seize upon the strangest reasons for their decision. When you interview jury members, many of them will describe their decision in terms of whether they liked the attorneys involved, rather than whether facts were proven. Many mention how the attorneys were dressed, especially the female attorneys. Some don't like one witness and therefore discount all of the other evidence. I had one jury trial that was a hung jury (11-1) because one juror decided God had sent her there to protect the plaintiff.

As one of my favorite partners once told me, juries want to see Tom Cruise in the courtroom.

Now in the interest of fairness, I once had a federal judge force my client to settle by threatening to send a case on which we clearly prevailed (because the statute of limitations had passed)
to a jury trial. So the client could either pay an undeserving plaintiff $15,000 on the spot or spend $50-75,000 defending itself in trial. Asshole.

[ESF]

Feb 19, 2013 10:19:56 GMT -5 @publius said:

Feb 19, 2013 10:17:02 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I evolved to dislike juries when I was a practicing attorney. I think too many decisions are based upon emotion and gut feelings, and there is lack of dispassion. Plus, few if any juries actually consist of "peers." Now, this is not to say that I think all judges are beacons of wisdom, but given my choice, I'd go before a judge rather than a jury.

Yeah, but at least you have the choice. You're not stuck with one option or the other.

This is where I am. I don't think either is always 100% preferable. I do think that the fact that a defendant has a choice is what makes our system preferable. I think that improvements could be made to make our system better, but I do like it. I like knowing that if I were wrongfully accused, I could work with my lawyer to decide which approach would be the most fair in light of all of the evidence.

[dirtyred]

The jury system has its problems, mainly that inteligent people, the kind that would make great jurors, try to get out of jury duty.

I was on a jury for a medical malpractice case. It was obvious to all of us that the physician was innocent, but one woman voted guilty because "she wanted the woman's kids to get some money." She was from a lower socioeconomic group, so she saw this lawsuit as if it were winning the lottery--a one time chance to change your fortune. When you see some ridiculous jury awards, it's because the jury has been filled with this mentality instead of more objective people.

[cc]

I served on a jury for a little over two weeks. Most of them did not understand what "beyond a reasonable doubt" meant.

[gpw]

Feb 19, 2013 10:17:02 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I evolved to dislike juries when I was a practicing attorney. I think too many decisions are based upon emotion and gut feelings, and there is lack of dispassion. Plus, few if any juries actually consist of "peers." Now, this is not to say that I think all judges are beacons of wisdom, but given my choice, I'd go before a judge rather than a jury.

that is an issue that is being discussed here with regard to race in federal trials....brought to light by none other than the attorneys for Kwame Kilpatrick.  However, I do think it's valid.  Especially when a federal trials pull from so many different areas.  

[starlily]

Feb 19, 2013 10:17:02 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I evolved to dislike juries when I was a practicing attorney. I think too many decisions are based upon emotion and gut feelings, and there is lack of dispassion. Plus, few if any juries actually consist of "peers." Now, this is not to say that I think all judges are beacons of wisdom, but given my choice, I'd go before a judge rather than a jury.

I've done jury trials and bench trials. Give me a judge any day.

[ttt]

I've always felt that if I were on trial, if I were innocent I would want a judge deciding and if I were guilty I would want a jury.

My experience serving on juries has not left me with a high opinion of the system.

[ESF]

Feb 19, 2013 11:05:49 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

ETA:  Oh, and I agree with PPs that a group of people who are presented with the final product of a case (admissible evidence only) is superior to trial by judge, where the finder of fact and the decider of law are the same person.

While I agree with everything you've said (right down to special medical courts), I don't necessarily agree with this one thing, at least as it pertains to civil trials, where it can be used to help/hurt both sides equally. 

I think that a good judge (emphasis on good) would know how to weigh the reliability of the evidence, and would know how much weight to give hearsay evidence.   While certain things can be prejudicial to a jury, presumably a judge knows that hearsay is typically not reliable, and will factor that in.

I worked on a case in law school before an ALJ at a federal agency.  I don't know if this is how it works for all ALJs in all federal agencies, but in this case, they were required to detail the factual basis for their opinion.   The defendants had moved to exclude a shit ton of stuff, and the ALJ was basically like, "eff off, I've got this."   The resulting opinion was something like 40 pages long, and he went through every single thing that went into his opinion, and what he found reliable or persuasive, and what he didn't.  Reading the thought process was fascinating.  It also seemed like a much more flexible approach to handling evidence than in a jury trial. 

If judges were required to do something like that, I would be more supportive of a judge-only system.  But it's way too labor intensive and tedious, and probably not economically practical for many areas of the law.

[PinkSquirrel]

Feb 19, 2013 10:17:02 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I evolved to dislike juries when I was a practicing attorney. I think too many decisions are based upon emotion and gut feelings, and there is lack of dispassion. Plus, few if any juries actually consist of "peers." Now, this is not to say that I think all judges are beacons of wisdom, but given my choice, I'd go before a judge rather than a jury.

I've sat on a trial once and was pretty horrified by the level of emotion people were using to make their decision.   It was a bunch of white as snow people, sitting on a trial for a hispanic male.   The police were clearly corrupt and had screwed up all over the place and there was no untainted evidence against directly connected this kid.  Everyone agreed with that, but he was probably a "bad person" ie not white and from a poor neighborhood, so ... GUILTY.   Luckily, there were two of us that were horrified by the behavior and we dug our heals in and forced the rest of the jury to, you know, follow the damn law.

[chalupabatman]

Jury instructions are the bane of my existence. It is a pain to explain some concepts in a way that isn't objectionable but that people understand.

I have a coffee mug that says, "lawyer: my career depends on twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty." Its depressing how people view jury duty in this country. I would love to do it but nobody will let me on their jury : (

[starlily]

Feb 19, 2013 12:34:02 GMT -5 ESF said:

Feb 19, 2013 11:05:49 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

ETA:  Oh, and I agree with PPs that a group of people who are presented with the final product of a case (admissible evidence only) is superior to trial by judge, where the finder of fact and the decider of law are the same person.

I think that a good judge (emphasis on good) would know how to weigh the reliability of the evidence, and would know how much weight to give hearsay evidence.   While certain things can be prejudicial to a jury, presumably a judge knows that hearsay is typically not reliable, and will factor that in.

I worked on a case in law school before an ALJ at a federal agency.  I don't know if this is how it works for all ALJs in all federal agencies, but in this case, they were required to detail the factual basis for their opinion.   The defendants had moved to exclude a shit ton of stuff, and the ALJ was basically like, "eff off, I've got this."   The resulting opinion was something like 40 pages long, and he went through every single thing that went into his opinion, and what he found reliable or persuasive, and what he didn't.  Reading the thought process was fascinating.  It also seemed like a much more flexible approach to handling evidence than in a jury trial. 

If judges were required to do something like that, I would be more supportive of a judge-only system.  But it's way too labor intensive and tedious, and probably not economically practical for many areas of the law.

In juvenile criminal court, where everything is a bench trial, the judges are required to state the factual basis for their decision on the record. Since they also determine the punishment, they again have to detail why they selected the consequence they did, particularly if they do not choose the least restrictive means available.

[5thofjuly]

I wonder if it'd be possible (or, if possible, ever preferable) to ever professionalize the jury system, at least for certain specialized areas. There is currently a supply of unemployed lawyers, right? I curious for the attorneys here: do you think lawyers would make good jurors?

[chalupabatman]

Feb 19, 2013 14:24:36 GMT -5 5thofjuly said:

I wonder if it'd be possible (or, if possible, ever preferable) to ever professionalize the jury system, at least for certain specialized areas. There is currently a supply of unemployed lawyers, right? I curious for the attorneys here: do you think lawyers would make good jurors?

No.  Lawyers think they know everything.  We would try to apply laws that weren't relevant, etc and talk over each other incessantly.

This is giving me horrible flashbacks of trial ad, where the juries were made up of fellow law students.  Shudder

[Deleted]

I am currently in the process of settling a case that, even though legally my client did everything right, we will lose if we go before a jury because of the circumstances. We lost summary judgment because there are material issues of fact (and we do think the judge erred in denying SJ anyway) but even if the jury can comprehend the complex bureaucracy that caused the Plaintiff to lose his employment, we don't think it will matter.

In this instance, a judge deciding the issues of fact would be far preferential to a jury, because an average juror will be pissed this guy was a victim of bureaucracy and will want to stick it to my client.

[Deleted]

The LAPD provided OJ with plenty of reasonable doubt so that's a piss poor example.

[meshaliuknits]

Feb 19, 2013 16:50:23 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

The LAPD provided OJ with plenty of reasonable doubt so that's a piss poor example.

That case is why I knew what a crime scene investigator was in middle school. Well, that and Hunter.

[starlily]

Feb 19, 2013 14:24:36 GMT -5 5thofjuly said:

I wonder if it'd be possible (or, if possible, ever preferable) to ever professionalize the jury system, at least for certain specialized areas. There is currently a supply of unemployed lawyers, right? I curious for the attorneys here: do you think lawyers would make good jurors?

Lolololololololol!

[Deleted]

I know. I was wondering if you mentioned that your friends when you discussed it. Some of the most high profile cases we think of are often really bad case studies, kwim?

[StrawberryBlondie]

Feb 19, 2013 14:24:36 GMT -5 5thofjuly said:

I wonder if it'd be possible (or, if possible, ever preferable) to ever professionalize the jury system, at least for certain specialized areas. There is currently a supply of unemployed lawyers, right? I curious for the attorneys here: do you think lawyers would make good jurors?

Have you ever been in a room full of lawyers?