Trial by a Jury - Term Paper Example

? The Juror Introduction Trial by a jury has for an extended period been recognized to the foundation of freedom and justice. Jurors are a critical part of the justice system, and the right to trial by jury guaranteed in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. constitution. The power of jury nullification predates the Constitution and avail a system of checks and balances, as the people’s last safeguard against unjust law and tyranny. The jury plays the role of evaluating evidence, determining how reliable is the evidence presented and deciding what to believe. The jury should decide the facts in the case and then apply the facts to the law. For all the Americans, trial by a jury is a basic constitutional right. The paper underscores the importance of getting a fair juror, who are capable of listening to the evidence presented and deciding the case based on facts rather than emotion. One may be summoned for one of the three core kinds of jury service, namely: a Grand juror, a State Grand Juror, or a Petit Juror. Juries are mainly comprised of people from all walks of life (intended to mirror the community) and does not require educational or skill requirements. Jurors are expected to remain impartial throughout the trial, weigh the evidence presented to them, and apply the law in an attempt to reach a verdict. Some people dislike the civic duty of being a juror and find all manner of excuses to disqualify themselves from this duty. In most case, requests to be excused are rarely granted, especially those based on religious beliefs, status, moral beliefs, and professional status (Sunstein, 2002). Most people cite inconvenience to a prospective trial juror; nevertheless, this not a legal reason to be excused from jury service though this may warrant postponement. Potential jurors are essentially picked from various sources such as voter registration list, identification cardholders, and lists of licensed drivers. Hence, some people do not understand the difference between “evidence” highlighted in the media and evidence presented during the trial. This presents difficulties especially when such people are selected to be jurors during a trial (Waldrep, 2010). In the first episode, the prosecutor (Gerald Lewis) presents his version of event where he depicts Singh as a psychopath. The victim’s family threatens the accused on his arrival in court, and later opts to influence the jurors. In the course of the second episode (The Jury (ITV1)), Marcia receives a phone call directing her that, for the sake of her family, it would be advisable for her to vote "guilty." In episode 3, Marcia continues to receive threats and informs the judge on the unfortunate developments; nevertheless, she agrees to stay on; the judge indicates that if any other juror is adversely influenced, he will call for a retrial. These scenes demonstrate the challenges associated with being a juror. Discussion Surveys conducted by American Bar Association have demonstrated that, three out of four Americans are confident in the jury system as the fairest way of determining whether the defendant is guilty or innocent in criminal cases. Jurors should weigh lawyers’ arguments, evidence, as well a witness testimonies presented to reach a decision; nevertheless, this does not prevent the possibility of being impacted by their life experiences, which may create a bias towards either side. The trial judge presides over the trial and outlines what laws apply. The judge instructs the jury as the proper law in every case. Although, there are claims that a jury can “nullify” the law, such a perception come out as legally inaccurate and severely prejudices the application of justice. Jurors who may disregard the trial judge’s instructions have contravened their oath. Once the jury has arrived at its verdict, the presiding juror fills in and signs the verdict form. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the jury possesses an “unreviewable and irreversible power” to exonerate in disregard of the instructions on law provided by the trial judge (see US V. Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland in which the court appreciated the undisputed power of the jury to acquit irrespective of whether the verdict contrasts the law as given by the judge and contrasts the evidence provided. Such power must prevail as long as the court sticks to the general verdict provided in the criminal cases. In the event that the jury believes that the law under which the defendant is accused is unfair, or that exigent circumstances excused the actions of the accused, or for other reasons that appeals to their logic of passion, the jury enjoys the power to acquit, and courts are expected to abide by that decision (See US V. Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)). On average, most of the jurors do not understand the difference between evidence presented in the media as opposed to that heard during a trial. A report by the ministry of justice UK revealed that two out of three jurors fail to understand the legal directions given to them by judges, especially when they retire to consider their verdict. Most people may be surprised by certain facts and procedures that manifest in the legal system. Surveys screening jurors have revealed that two in three jurors admit feeling confused and even stressed over judge’s directions (Lippman, 2011). Jurors should uphold rigorous requirements such as not undertaking research on the internet, not talking to family and friends about the trial, and not visiting the scene of crime on your own. The final vote that the juror makes should represent his or her opinion; nevertheless, the juror’s decision may have changed after deliberations with fellow jurors. As such, the juror should not hesitate to change his or her opinion and one should not compel another juror to agree with one’s opinion or decline to listen to the arguments and opinions of others (Kaplan & Winget, 1992). The stressfulness differs based upon the nature of the trial, the length of the trial, the testimony and evidence, the complexity of guilt and innocence, and the public’s attitude (Kaplan & Winget, 1992). Such experiences can generate psychological and/or physical discomfort, which may be transient and mildly intense, or even severe. Some cases, especially cases involving capital offences have a lasting effect on the juror long after the trial is over. Some Jurors deliberating harrowing murder trials complain of suffering from post-traumatic stress, which they attribute to listening to the evidence delivered during the trial. Some jurors complain of having panic attacks, nightmares, and anxiety, which highlights the need for aftercare for jurors (Lippman, 2011). It if regularly highlighted that the judicial process draws from pure reason devoid of emotions; nevertheless, attorneys have intuited to the effect that emotions have on the juror’s verdict decisions. Attorneys often attempt to stir emotions in jurors in the opening and closing statements, or via the utilization of emotionally disturbing evidence (Salerno & Bottoms, 2010). However, such attempts might yield to unintended consequences to the manner in which jurors’ process or interpret trial evidence. Such evidence may fail to avail unique information on harm or heighten jurors’ emotions in irrelevant ways, which in turn, outweighs the distinct factual information. This can be perceived as legally prejudicial (Salerno & Bottoms, 2010). Prosecutors may also utilize gruesome photographs from the murder scene in an attempt to stir negative emotions, such as anger and disgust, with the hope of making them more probable to convict the defendant. Studies on mock juror have revealed that, even in instances where mock jurors hear the same evidence, juror who see gruesome photographs of a murder victim are highly likely to vote "guilty" (Salerno & Bottoms, 2010). The second form of emotionally disturbing prosecution evidence that might stir negative emotion among juror centers on victim impact statement, whereby capital trial prosecutors can have their victim’s family members testify on the victim’s death (Salerno & Bottoms, 2010). Although, jurors mostly possess favorable attitudes toward jury service, jury service may be difficult and even stressful owing to diverse reasons. The two most prominent stressful elements of jury duty are occasioned by the complexity of the trial and the decision-making involved during the trial. Other sources of stress include jury deliberations and discussions, violent crimes, crimes against children, answering questions in front of people, and differences among jurors (Bornstein et al., 2005). The impact of most jurors a death penalty case The modern capital punishment system inflicts immense psychological and physical impact on capital jurors. The decision on whether the accused should live or die exercise a significant burden on the juror, especially emotional and psychological duress that jurors struggle with owing to their jury service. The anxiety that jurors experience can emanate from diverse sources and often express anger at the criminal justice system, as well as the law for rendering it difficult to arrive at a fair decision or a decision that they perceived that some party would feel offended (Antonio, 2006). The extreme feelings of anxiety and stress may yield to diverse health problems occasioned by the reoccurring of thoughts regarding the trial, which would keep the jurors sleepless at night or make them have nightmares regarding crime and the defendant (Antonio, 2006). Research has demonstrated differing levels of stress derived from the case, whereby jurors serving on traumatic cases such as murder, and aggravated sexual assault were highly likely to experience symptoms linked to depression compared to jurors serving in non-traumatic cases. Some studies have demonstrated that jurors serving in murder cases were highly upset by the photographs of the victim, blood tainted physical evidence gathered from the scene, and having to sentence the defendant to death (Antonio, 2006). It is evident that juror feel pressured by their communities, or even the media when they are making their decisions. For instance, in the trial of George Zimmerman where the jury reached a verdict of “not guilty,” the jury admitted feeling pressured by the high sharply divided public interest that the case attracted. People often look at juror as modern-day oracles expecting them to settle the debate definitively; however, in George Zimmerman case, the jury reached a terse decision highlighting that the prosecutors were unsuccessful in proving Zimmerman guilty of murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of George Zimmerman, the judge ruled that six women would serve as jury and two men would serve as alternates. The judge ruled that the jurors will have to be sequestered, housed a group separate from their families and friends. The jurors also had limited contact with their families and limited access to the internet. The judge also disallowed the jury to discuss the case with family members or friends or on the internet. The ruling by Judge Nelson was designed to keep juror away from media coverage (Sunstein, 2002). The scrutiny on media exposure serves to ensure that the jurors have not formed an opinion about the case given that, only evidence should be that heard during trial rather than on media coverage. Jurors should be completely honest with their knowledge of the case and opinions that had formed on the case. This arises from the fact that, in a high profile case, jurors characteristically form an opinion for or against the subject (Starr & McCormick, 2009). Can jurors cause a case to be overturned? In the U.S., any presiding judge can set aside a jury’s guilty verdict in the event that that judge finds the verdict contradictory to the weight of the evidence, or not grounded on relevant law; nevertheless, a judge cannot overturn a not guilty verdict. This may arise in instances where a jury may be prejudiced against the defendant or errs in its fact finding or application of the law (Starr & McCormick, 2009). The verdict of not guilty can be overturned in the event that the jury comes out as corrupt in some way. An overturned verdict translates to a new trial. For instance, in the case of Lincoln Taylor of West Virginia, the juries in the trial were suspected of not comprehending the instructions based on the comments made to the media subsequent to the trial. After the filing of a motion to overturn the verdict, Lincoln Taylor was brought to justice with a second trial. The verdict, including death sentence may be overturned on juror misconduct. Gross misconduct by the juror may be in the form of juror researching on the defendant or reading appellate opinions on the trial. In the case of Gary Sampson who had received a death sentence owing to conviction for multiple murders in 2001, the decision was reversed, and a new trial was ordered after a juror was found to have lied when answering a jury form. The juror, identified as “C”, failed to answer truthfully a number of questions on a jury questionnaire during the selection process. The juror had failed to indicate that she was a victim of domestic violence and that her husband had at one point threatened her with a rifle. These were pertinent circumstances and experiences that would otherwise have disqualified her from participating in the trial as a juror in the trial. In episode 6 (The Jury), one comes to learn that one of the juries may be an alcoholic who has just left the rehab. This highlights that the juror should have been disqualified on the grounds of misconduct. Conclusion Cases that go to trial necessitate to be resolved by citizens expected to hear the evidence presented, determine the facts, and deliver a verdict. In the present system, jurors are expected to keep an open mind, weigh upon the evidence presented to them in court and attempt to reach a verdict. Jurors in criminal trials face a significant burden of responsibility given that they determine the defendant’s fate. Moreover, jurors can be exposed to stressful, dreadful, and sordid aspects of life during trials. Overall, anxiety that jurors experience when handling cases dealing with capital offences arise from fear for their own safety and wellbeing, as well as fear and paranoia of being watched by individuals inside the courthouse such as the defendant's family. References Antonio, M. E. (2006). “I didn’t know it’d be so hard”: Jurors’ emotional reactions to serving on a capital trial. Judicature, 89 (5): 282-288. Retrieved from: //docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3So1XC1PQ0cJ:https://www.ajs.org/ajs/publications/Judicature_PDFs/895/Antonio_895.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj0aDHfCMsoelXmMW7cr4ftZ6jULzvmkZtb--DnwLWdUxJkxpiY3UYs9sDpZsnSBu9vDWgW9R0jh37I34wEg-KvmC8bIuUhjFo--Meil93O767mH3NYVeYwVrxRRTPLk-RJmf3J&sig=AHIEtbSUcp7K1NalLshTBPaqPYItrlPF9A Bornstein, B. H., et al. (2005). Juror reactions to jury duty: Perceptions of the system and potential stressors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23 (1): 321-346. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=psychfacpub Kaplan, S. M. & Winget, C. M. (1992). The occupational hazards of jury duty. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 20 (3): 325-333. Retrieved from: http://www.jaapl.org/content/20/3/325.full.pdf Lippman, M. R. (2011). Criminal procedure. Los Angeles, LA: Sage. Salerno, J. M. & Bottoms, B. L. (2010). Unintended consequences of toying with juror’s emotions: The impact of disturbing emotional evidence on jurors’ verdicts. The Jury Expert. Retrieved from: http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/unintended-consequences-of-toying-with-jurors-emotions-the-impact-of-disturbing-emotional-evidence-on-jurors-verdicts/ Starr, V. H., & McCormick, M. (2009). Jury selection. Austin, TX.: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Aspen Publishers. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Punitive damages: How juries decide. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Waldrep, C. (2010). Jury discrimination: The Supreme Court, public opinion, and a grassroots fight for racial equality in Mississippi. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Read More