Who should be on a Jury?

[GamezRule]

Why not a jury of regular citizens presided over by a lawyer?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Don't worry - many a malpractice appeal has been decided on the appellate panel's disdain for the patient, rather than judgment of the law.

Not that that's any better.

And what this has led to, as I'm sure you know, is to treat patients and their families as customers in a business model, where the customer is always right. As long as the customer is satisfied with the product, he doesn't complain, and the threat of the complaint itself is usually bad enough to arouse fear. Although malpractice cases nearly always favor the doctor, the expense is so great in the defense that it creates a climate of fear, causing physicians to overdo it with diagnostics and prescriptions.

It would be nice to have a court where only the facts are judged, not whether the jury likes someone's face, or their mood at the time of the trial.

You're not supposed to use facts you know of outside the evidence introduced at trial in order to reach your decision. Other than things like basic common sense a juror is supposed to be informed by what they are provided in court and nothing more. Which is why a Mr. Smarty Pants juror is a potential liability in some cases.

Which is the same as saying that the ideal juror is someone who knows absolutely nothing outside of what is told to him at a trial. That's exactly what I just said about my experience of jury selection.

More educated folk tend to cling to biases they have already developed during their lifetime of becoming learned.

Some do, some don't. What I find more likely is that ignorance tends to breed suspicion and fear of subject matter one knows nothing about, not rational decision making. If you are a juror who knows nothing of the technical details of a case, you are in a daunting position, because you are expected to provide judgement of facts after a crash course. That effectively means you're at the mercy of counsel. You're not judging facts independently. You're just being brainwashed by the court.

If this is what is expected of a jury -- a totally malleable mass of people that simply regurgitates what they discover in court -- then I don't see what the point of a trial by jury is. You might as well just have judges decide cases after a lengthy inquisition. The effect is the same.

edit: An example: If you were a juror in a medical malpractice case you would have mounds of testimony from "expert" doctor witnesses. Technically the universe of knowledge you would have to rely on would be limited to these expert witnesses.

I'm glad you put "expert" in quotes, since that title is purely informal. I am sure you realize how many trials involve duelling experts. For every expert that claims one thing, the opposing counsel will find another that disagrees entirely. What is the jury of that case supposed to believe, besides their confusion?

 

[Millman]

We haven't had this conversation before.

Since human beings have proven to make things appear and disappear. To make and destroy, it would be hard to find a true jury without taint and influenced by any side.

I made the statement years ago that if you want things to change for the better accuse someone important first.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I'm for having jurors randomly selected from among citizens. Of course, I consider it a very unwise policy to grant citizenship to anyone who has not passed fairly stringent testing to confirm adequate understanding of the rights and responsibilities before giving informed consent to the citizenship contract. Citizenship (and the education needed to assure the prerequisite understanding) should be open to all but never automatic or mandatory; I have no problem with the majority of the populace never seeking it.

Unfortunately, a more complex jury selection mechanism is probably necessary so long as we keep such silly notions as natural birth citizenship.




I would also insist that each juror should have just as much right to examine witnesses as either the prosecution or defense.

They should also be made away of the right of jury nullification. I tend to think that the system should be set up so that jury nullification automatically triggers a referendum on whether to repeal the law being nullified. I might make it so that the accused is only acquitted if the public votes to agree with the nullification of the law.

I also kind of like the way that Jewish courts require some dissent in order to avoid a mistrial. Going for unanimity is not good, as discouraging dissent encourages group think and a lack of critical thinking.

 

[Zelig]

Being highly educated does not make it less likely one is biased. If anything you are far more biased towards those things you have already learned or think you have learned.

I could buy this if dumb people weren't oblivious to the fact that they're dumb.

 

[Scratch]

I could buy this if dumb people weren't oblivious to the fact that they're dumb.

A problem is that smart people can also be oblivious to the fact that they are being dumb. They mistake their smartness about some things to being smart about all things. Confirmation bias exists probably in nearly all human beings.

 

[fugazi]

Professionals - there's a reason it's their job and not yours.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I would also insist that each juror should have just as much right to examine witnesses as either the prosecution or defense.

One of the things which really impressed me with my particular judge (who BTW was a GWB appointee and is a staunch conservative...), is that he did just that. Prior to any witness being excused, he asked the jury if they had any questions they wished to ask. And if so, to write them down and pass them to the bailiff so he and the attorneys could review them. In a few cases the questions were indeed asked and answered.

They should also be made away of the right of jury nullification. I tend to think that the system should be set up so that jury nullification automatically triggers a referendum on whether to repeal the law being nullified. I might make it so that the accused is only acquitted if the public votes to agree with the nullification of the law.

Not sure what you mean by this. AFAIK jury nullification doesn't lead to law nullification.

 

[JollyRoger]

It would be nice to have a court where only the facts are judged,

It would be, but tort reform is cutting that off more and more

 

[illram]

Not that that's any better.

And what this has led to, as I'm sure you know, is to treat patients and their families as customers in a business model, where the customer is always right. As long as the customer is satisfied with the product, he doesn't complain, and the threat of the complaint itself is usually bad enough to arouse fear. Although malpractice cases nearly always favor the doctor, the expense is so great in the defense that it creates a climate of fear, causing physicians to overdo it with diagnostics and prescriptions.

It would be nice to have a court where only the facts are judged, not whether the jury likes someone's face, or their mood at the time of the trial.



Which is the same as saying that the ideal juror is someone who knows absolutely nothing outside of what is told to him at a trial. That's exactly what I just said about my experience of jury selection.



Some do, some don't. What I find more likely is that ignorance tends to breed suspicion and fear of subject matter one knows nothing about, not rational decision making. If you are a juror who knows nothing of the technical details of a case, you are in a daunting position, because you are expected to provide judgement of facts after a crash course. That effectively means you're at the mercy of counsel. You're not judging facts independently. You're just being brainwashed by the court.

If this is what is expected of a jury -- a totally malleable mass of people that simply regurgitates what they discover in court -- then I don't see what the point of a trial by jury is. You might as well just have judges decide cases after a lengthy inquisition. The effect is the same.



I'm glad you put "expert" in quotes, since that title is purely informal. I am sure you realize how many trials involve duelling experts. For every expert that claims one thing, the opposing counsel will find another that disagrees entirely. What is the jury of that case supposed to believe, besides their confusion?

Well I am coming at this from the perspective of one of the adversaries who has to play this game. Not a 3rd person looking from the outside in opining about what type of system would be truly objective and mete out justice. That would be nice to have of course. (Is that even possible?) I am more interested in a system that provides both of the parties to the lawsuit with the opportunity to have a fair trial. That's what this is about. Our system attempts to do that by letting both sides, theoretically, agree on the 12 people that will decide the facts of the case. A super educated person that knows a lot about something that may be an issue in the case is going to not sit well with at least one side. So, they're gone. Which to me, is fair.

A juror who gets into that deliberation room and starts talking about things they did not hear at trial, in an effort to make a decision on the facts of the case and convince the other jurors, totally throws a wrench in the whole system and ruins it for both sides. Including the court system, because if that fact comes out you could have a higher court potentially make everyone do it all over again.

That's what you get in an adversarial system like ours. Would an inquisitorial system be "more fair" from an objective viewpoint? Maybe, I don't know. But within the system we have, jurors who use facts not in evidence ruin the integrity of the system completely.

The other thing people should know is that people who file lawsuits (Plaintiffs) get to choose when they want a jury. In super complicated cases, or cases that do not appeal to jurors (such as, say, a thorny financial corporate case involving lots of complicated contract law claims) parties will usually not want a jury trial. So you have to consider the added element that jurors only get to hear cases that the lawyers want them to hear. I.e., cases that a jury will get or want to hear. We do have bench trials (just before a judge) in our system, lots of them.

 

[civver_764]

I think choosing randomly out of a group of volunteers is the best method.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It would be, but tort reform is cutting that off more and more

How?

A juror who gets into that deliberation room and starts talking about things they did not hear at trial, in an effort to make a decision on the facts of the case and convince the other jurors, totally throws a wrench in the whole system and ruins it for both sides. Including the court system, because if that fact comes out you could have a higher court potentially make everyone do it all over again.

This is where I disagree. The point of having an impartial jury is that no one on that panel should have any knowledge of the facts of the case outside of what they learn at trial, not any knowledge of the universe in general. It is inevitable that every person has some knowledge of things more than others. That is not reason to disqualify them. Inevitably also, some jurors may have more knowledge of the technical details of the case without being formally trained. (Someone may simply learn a topic out of personal interest, for example.) It would be unlikely for counsel to recognize this in a potential juror without being prohibitively comprehensive in questioning.

That's what you get in an adversarial system like ours. Would an inquisitorial system be "more fair" from an objective viewpoint? Maybe, I don't know. But within the system we have, jurors who use facts not in evidence ruin the integrity of the system completely.

This isn't what I'm against. It's the deliberate selection of stupid people who will believe anything you tell them that I'm against.

The other thing people should know is that people who file lawsuits (Plaintiffs) get to choose when they want a jury. In super complicated cases, or cases that do not appeal to jurors (such as, say, a thorny financial corporate case involving lots of complicated contract law claims) parties will usually not want a jury trial. So you have to consider the added element that jurors only get to hear cases that the lawyers want them to hear. I.e., cases that a jury will get or want to hear. We do have bench trials (just before a judge) in our system, lots of them.

As I only recently learned, everyone has the right to a trial by jury even in civil cases above $20. The super complicated cases I don't worry about. They are not so much a matter of justice as a matter of minutiae. What matters to me is whether justice is meted out, and if you establish a jury that is just a bunch of brainwashed drones, ready to believe any BS, the outcome will not be a matter of justice.

 

[JollyRoger]

How?

Making people jump through all sorts of administrative, pre-filing, and post-filing hoops before getting to a jury trial. Miss a hoop? Case tossed.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Making people jump through all sorts of administrative, pre-filing, and post-filing hoops before getting to a jury trial. Miss a hoop? Case tossed.

I believe that's what we have you lawyer types for.

 

[JollyRoger]

I believe that's what we have you lawyer types for.

The lawyer typically covers the upfront risk and expenses of a medical malpractice lawsuit and these hoops just make it less likely a decent lawyer will take on the case. I certainly don't take on such suits (one of only two areas of representation that I avoid) because there are too many ways to lose on procedure (with new ways to lose getting rolled out by the legislatures and courts on a regular basis), even if you should have a good shot on the merits. The Texas Supreme Court hasn't ruled in favor of a plaintiff on one of these hoops in about a decade.