Kara Liu: The democracy and longevity of the American jury

Editor’s note: This is the excerpted version of the winning essay from the American Heritage Essay contest conducted by Modesto City Schools, the Stanislaus County Office of Education and The Modesto Bee. Kara Liu, a student at Beyer High, addressed the prompt: In 1215 the Magna Carta affirmed a right to trial by jury. Eight-hundred years later and a continent away, many civil and criminal disputes are still resolved by juries. Is trial by jury an idea past its prime? Citations and footnotes have been removed. Liu was awarded a $2,000 scholarship for the

As America was finding its feet in the early 18th century, the jury system was finding its voice. Admittedly, we inherited the concept of trial by jury like many other things: from our mother country, England. In 1215, England’s Magna Carta became perhaps the first written law stipulating trial by jury. However, despite the jury’s progress from witnesses to an organized panel, jurors were often partisan and self-informed in their verdicts. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth in the late 17th century, the jury system made tremendous strides under the thoughtful eye of the Queen’s judge, Sir Edward Coke. Coke “revived the Magna Carta” and utilized it as “a vehicle to advocate for people’s liberties” and thus the right to trial by jury. During Bonham’s Case in 1610, Coke made history by overruling the English Parliament for infringing on a civilian’s rights, stating that “when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason…the common law will controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void.” Through his interpretation of the common law, Coke left a legacy for the American colonists; his law books, implementation of personal liberties, and undermining of the royal authority set a strong precedent for the American jury system and were absorbed by the colonists in declaration of their autonomy. Such can be seen by the famous 1735 Zenger Case, in which Zenger, a printer, was arrested for his open condemnation of the royal government. In a revolutionary decision, the colonial jury ruled in favor of Zenger, asserting the importance of free speech and the jury system’s symbolic power over the king. Americans thus used juries not only as an inherited concept, but also as an emblem of our growing independence and, later, as a part of our national identity.

Trial by jury was guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and Article 3 in the U.S. Constitution. Like our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and security of private property, our right to trial by jury should be protected and maintained. Juries are not only indicative of our past, but also represent the contemporary moment and all the citizens that currently make up our democratic nation.

Indeed, in its ideal form, a jury is a "body truly representative of the community” composed of competent yet impartial citizens that will help reach a verdict in a case based solely off of provided evidence. Since jurors are randomly selected from a pool of eligible adults, juries represent a variety of all citizens and hence are more indicative of what the community as a whole would support. As opposed to a bench trial, where a single judge makes the decision against the accused, a jury trial allows for many opinions from many types of people. The system is a better illustration of community consensus since there is a larger cross-section of the population represented in court. As stated by Jeffery Abramson, a Professor of Politics and former law-clerk:

The whole point (of juries) is to subject law to a democratic interpretation, to achieve a justice that resonates with the values and common sense of the people in whose name the law was written….In a democracy, the legitimacy of the law depends on acceptance by the people.

This concept that law comes from democracy is not accepted by all. Some argue that jurors are biased and hence predisposed to a specific verdict. Admittedly, juries are comprised of an assortment of random people with distinct personalities. Yet it is these precise traits so often criticized by the public that make up the system’s assets. This theory of “ordinariness” is “what sets the jury system apart” from other systems: a jury “allows a person to be judged by others like him - people who come from the same community and share its same values.” Biases that aren’t weeded out through “voir dire,” a colloquial expression for when lawyers select the most impartial jurors to judge the case best, appear in court as a factor of diversity. While sworn in to judge via evidence, a body of jurors, unique in each of their viewpoints, is an incredible advantage over other systems; already, the panel is twelve times as critical and diverse in its perspectives. In addition, those that censure juries for being partial forget that judges have their faults, too. With a superior political position, judges “may not accurately reflect the prevailing views of the community” and furthermore find it difficult to break either binding proceedings or subconscious biases within themselves. The fact is that any decision a human makes is based solely upon his or her experiences and knowledge and thus are distinct to each individual. It is impossible for a person, judge or juror, to make a fully unbiased judgement. Given this inability for unbiased decisions, as well as the need for diversity in order to ensure community representation, it is impossible for any juror to be unqualified. As stated by Judge Villalobos:

“A lot of people believe that (jurors can be unqualified). … I disagree. ... The thing that’s great about a trial of your peers … is that we have diversity of opinion and thought within our community, and that’s the purpose of the jury.”

The jury system isn’t perfect, but no system is. In the end, juries concede far more benefits than downfalls. In response to the outburst at the acquittal in the O.J. Simpson trial, Barbara Babcock, a law professor at Stanford, stated that “for every jury that goes awry, there are a hundred that do the right thing.”

With all that the jurors contribute to the court, the court gives just as much back to the jurors. The position as a juror provides citizens with the reassurance of their value and civic duty within the government. If too many Americans are unaware of what goes on behind government curtains, an internal division of people versus government can spawn and fracture the nation. However, jury duty protects against this divide by allowing citizens to have an active role within the judicial system instead of merely observing the government from afar. Through the inclusion of random citizens, “jury service…promot(es) self-governance and civic participation” and has the “ability to elevate ordinary citizens into self-governors.” Thus jury duty constantly attests to every person’s inalienable importance and societal significance. Moreover, this need for civic participation points to an autonomous nature interwoven into the government. By having important proceedings conducted by everyday people, the jury system highlights the dependence on its citizens within America’s infrastructure of law and justice. Being a juror thus unites citizens with their government and the judiciary branch with community consensus.

Despite all the evidence that points to the efficiency of jury trials, the system still has its detractors. Perhaps the biggest claim on juries being “past their prime” is aimed at petit (12-person) criminal juries because punishments are much higher and thus juries have more pressure to deliver fairly. Some argue that in a criminal case, with unanimity needed for conviction, it might be less common for juries to declare a guilty verdict as opposed to that in a bench trial. In conjunction, a push for a more diverse jury can lead to a multitude of decisions and thus a “hung” jury with no decision. Yet data proves otherwise. According to the 2010 Annual Report of the Director in the US court system, 88 percent of all jury criminal trials end in a convicted verdict, and were therefore unanimous in their decision. On the other hand, only 65 percent of bench criminal trials declared the defendant guilty. Such data contradicts the claim that juries are defective and indecisive; in fact, juries seem to have a firmer grip on justice than their one-vote counterpart.

Still others claim that juries take up more time and are inefficient in their proceedings. However, this time allows jurors to meticulously dissect and think over the case and thus come to a fairer conclusion. Juries have “time for thoughtful reflection” and allow many people to consider the case from various angles. In fact, evidence has proved that “when jurors must reach a unanimous verdict, they spend more time in deliberation and engage in higher-quality discussions of the case.” Such thorough deliberation cannot be bought without an extension of time; any delay in a jury’s trial only concedes a more fastidious analysis of the case in order to make a better, fairer decision.

Amidst its opposition, the jury system has proved not to be “a static institution but one which continues the process of gradual evolution.” Over the years, contenders of the jury system have maintained that peremptory challenges, “voir dire,” and other limiting factors create a lack of diversity and a partial, instead of impartial, jury. In response, many steps have been taken in the past century to promote a fairer panel representation. In 1935, Norris v. Alabama overturned the former Scottsboro case, in which nine African American boys were wrongly convicted under an all-white jury. Norris v. Alabama affirmed that “that organized exclusion of blacks from jury panels…was a violation of a defendants' constitutional right to due process.” Still, as late as 1960, juries were still blue-ribbon panels, the most educated and virtuous men of society. It wasn’t until the Jury and Service Act of 1968 that the pools from which jurors were selected was broadened to encompass a wider cross-section of society. In 1986, the Court stipulated in Baston v. Kentucky that, via the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, it was forbidden that any racial discrimination play a role when choosing jurors. (It wouldn’t be until J.E.B. v. Alabama in 1994 that jury selection nondiscrimination would extend into gender.) The fact that the jury system has been able to evolve and adapt proves that it is not a static structure. And if the jury system is not static, then it is constantly improving upon itself and can therefore avoid ever going “past its prime.”

The American jury system represents a prominent figure of tradition, justice, and patriotism that has adapted and advanced throughout our country’s history. Yet the jury is more than a cog in the judicial machine; the system has proved to have influential import on not just the judiciary branch but also the entirety of the nation. Juries form the American identity of democracy, ensure equality and fairness for both the accused and the civilians, and keep Americans involved in the government and thus in the structure of the nation. Jury duty is a role in society that symbolizes the beauty of the American government and its strength in democracy. As a united nation, we should preserve this well-established system as not only a symbol for our democratic roots, but also as a promise for a future in which the voice of every person, regardless of race, gender, or background, matters.

This story was originally published November 19, 2015 at 5:20 PM with the headline "Kara Liu: The democracy and longevity of the American jury."