Thought to improve jury system

[DrPizza]

#1: Rather than the current system of announcing out of the blue that you're going to have to serve jury duty, they let you know a month or so in advance that "You *must* serve jury duty sometime in the next year; pick your preferred month." (of course, with allowances for truly exceptional cases, ie, terminally ill on your death bed.)

#2: If there's enough evidence to bring a defendant to trial, then DA's are no longer allowed to accept plea bargains at the last minute, i.e. during juror selection.

 

[Banzai042]

#1 sounds like a decent idea, but I'm not so sure about #2. Granted it would increase the sentences of those that are guilty and would have gotten of lighter with a plea bargain, but at the same time it'll just create a situation where more trials occur because the defendant would have otherwise gone with the plea bargain. In the end more trials and longer sentences will cost more money, not to mention the fact that I would guess that there have been at least a few cases where the defendant opted for a plea bargain and would have been judged innocent for some reason in a jury trial.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
#1: Rather than the current system of announcing out of the blue that you're going to have to serve jury duty, they let you know a month or so in advance that "You *must* serve jury duty sometime in the next year; pick your preferred month." (of course, with allowances for truly exceptional cases, ie, terminally ill on your death bed.)

#2: If there's enough evidence to bring a defendant to trial, then DA's are no longer allowed to accept plea bargains at the last minute, i.e. during juror selection.

#2 would destroy the court system. Only a small percentage of cases go to trial.... if you were to vastly increase that you would overburden the system to the point of collapse. What is gained by it anyway?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

#2 would be a pointless waste of judicial resources.

 

[Craig234]

I think #1 is largely already addresssed by allowing people to postpone it.

#2 would need a better planned change.

I have an improvement too:

Allow jurors to submit written questions to the judge for witnesses. The judge could either ask the question or tell the jury it was inadmissable. A lot of the time, the lawyers don't ask what the jury wants them to.

 

[herkulease]

pay people minimum wage starting on the 1st day.

People have better paying jobs and when they are told at least here in Santa Clara County they get 15 dollars 2nd day and beyond plus mileage, people will find ways to get out.

Sure you could say 15 bucks is better than nothing. But if I factored in the hours says 4-5 hours a day, people are getting less than minimum wage. Not every state requires that you be paid when you're on jury duty by your regular job either.

 

[Witling]

#2 Would also scare the living wompoa out of the participants. One of the reasons why people settle both criminal and civil matters is that you literally don't pand know what a court outcome would be. That is simply not so or, to put it another way, "I bet on only one sure winning horse in my life, and that horse came in second."

San Diego did try something approximately like #2 years ago. They had a sign on the podium at one of the stages in arraignment. It said, "What leaves here goes to trial." meaning make your bargain now because the court won't approve one later after it's gone to all the trouble of assembling a jury. I don't know what the current status of that is.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

We should give more incentive to serve as jurors by reaffirming the power and importance of the jury as the final say in the validity of the facts and the law itself. The role of the jury has been reduced so that jurors are treated like servants that must think and act only how the judge allows them to, in effect defeating the purpose of a jury.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
We should give more incentive to serve as jurors by reaffirming the power and importance of the jury as the final say in the validity of the facts and the law itself. The role of the jury has been reduced so that jurors are treated like servants that must think and act only how the judge allows them to, in effect defeating the purpose of a jury.

That's completely wrong. Not only do juries nearly always decide guilt or innocence (outside of summary judgement which must be requested), but they are also the arbiters of life and death in death penalty cases. The judge guides the jury on what facts and facets they should be considering because.. well... that's one of the biggest reasons why a judge is there.

 

[Strk]

As far as I know, we already have #1. The only way you're going to get forced to appear right away is if you receive a delinquency notice.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: hscorpio
We should give more incentive to serve as jurors by reaffirming the power and importance of the jury as the final say in the validity of the facts and the law itself. The role of the jury has been reduced so that jurors are treated like servants that must think and act only how the judge allows them to, in effect defeating the purpose of a jury.

That's completely wrong. Not only do juries nearly always decide guilt or innocence (outside of summary judgement which must be requested), but they are also the arbiters of life and death in death penalty cases. The judge guides the jury on what facts and facets they should be considering because.. well... that's one of the biggest reasons why a judge is there.

You have laws against telling juries what they're actually allowed to do. (jury nullification).

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: hscorpio
We should give more incentive to serve as jurors by reaffirming the power and importance of the jury as the final say in the validity of the facts and the law itself. The role of the jury has been reduced so that jurors are treated like servants that must think and act only how the judge allows them to, in effect defeating the purpose of a jury.

That's completely wrong. Not only do juries nearly always decide guilt or innocence (outside of summary judgement which must be requested), but they are also the arbiters of life and death in death penalty cases. The judge guides the jury on what facts and facets they should be considering because.. well... that's one of the biggest reasons why a judge is there.

Jurors are lied to about their inherent right to judge the law itself along with guilt or innocence. Just acknowledging you understand your right to judge the law as well as the facts will get you booted from every jury in the country. If more people understood this important and critical function that makes them the final check & balance in the system and we forced courts to stop lieing about it, then more people might want to serve.

Millions of people take the time to vote but yet they almost all dread serving on a jury and only do so under threat of punishment. This might be different if more people understood how jury duty has just as much if not more of an impact on the laws and freedoms as voting does.

 

[nageov3t]

I'd be happy if the jury system just paid for parking / transportation costs.

in hudson county NJ, jury duty pays $5/day... and you're liable to pay $20-$30 in transportation costs every day no matter how you get there, unless you walk or hitch a ride.

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think #1 is largely already addresssed by allowing people to postpone it.

#2 would need a better planned change.

I have an improvement too:

Allow jurors to submit written questions to the judge for witnesses. The judge could either ask the question or tell the jury it was inadmissable. A lot of the time, the lawyers don't ask what the jury wants them to.

This is a really excellent suggestion. I would take it a step farther, and allow the jury to question witnesses without the lawyers or anyone else besides the judge present. Lawyers are certainly necessary, but sometimes they gum up the works (so to speak).

 

[daniel49]

Having just served on a jury, I can think of other ways to improve it.

1)Both the plantiff and the defendants backgrounds were purposely left blank for us.
Giving us very little information to gauge the amount of credibility to lend to thier testimony.

2)When it became a sticking point with the jury exactly what the testimony of a witness was.
Some remembered it one way others did not.
We were not allowed to see or hear the record of the testimony to clear up the discrepancy.

3)The state and law enforcement people did such a crappy job of preparing thier case, it made it impossable to do our job with any degree of certainty in either direction.

the result of the trial (without going into details) was innocent on one count and a hung jury on the second count.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Nuts, I was hoping this thread had something to do with tasers or maiming the lawyers.

I once served on a jury for a theft case in which neither lawyer could spell correctly.

 

[HomeAppraiser]

Instead of picking people at random, which usually ends up being when you are working or in class, pick people on government payments first. The way it is now you register to vote at 18 and get your first summons when you are a Freshman in college. Mom took care of it and I did not hear about it until Christmas vacation. After you graduate, change your address and start your first real job, bam Jury duty. Yea that makes the boss really happy. When I was unemployed or working for the government, nothing. I start my own business and bam, Jury duty.

So this is my plan: Unemployed and on the dole? Jury duty. Public employee just holding down a desk? Jury duty. On SSI disability? Jury duty. Retired? Jury duty.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Instead of picking people at random, which usually ends up being when you are working or in class, pick people on government payments first. The way it is now you register to vote at 18 and get your first summons when you are a Freshman in college. Mom took care of it and I did not hear about it until Christmas vacation. After you graduate, change your address and start your first real job, bam Jury duty. Yea that makes the boss really happy. When I was unemployed or working for the government, nothing. I start my own business and bam, Jury duty.

So this is my plan: Unemployed and on the dole? Jury duty. Public employee just holding down a desk? Jury duty. On SSI disability? Jury duty. Retired? Jury duty.

Jury duty is not a punishment... and you don't want to have a specific segment of society as professional jurors... that defeats the point.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I have an improvement too:

Allow jurors to submit written questions to the judge for witnesses. The judge could either ask the question or tell the jury it was inadmissable. A lot of the time, the lawyers don't ask what the jury wants them to.

I like that suggestion.

Also, somebody above said they (while on jury duty) were not allowed to review the written record, that should be changed too.

Fern

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Instead of picking people at random, which usually ends up being when you are working or in class, pick people on government payments first. The way it is now you register to vote at 18 and get your first summons when you are a Freshman in college. Mom took care of it and I did not hear about it until Christmas vacation. After you graduate, change your address and start your first real job, bam Jury duty. Yea that makes the boss really happy. When I was unemployed or working for the government, nothing. I start my own business and bam, Jury duty.

So this is my plan: Unemployed and on the dole? Jury duty. Public employee just holding down a desk? Jury duty. On SSI disability? Jury duty. Retired? Jury duty.

Jury duty is not a punishment... and you don't want to have a specific segment of society as professional jurors... that defeats the point.

I agree but more juror need to learn there power like jury nullification a lot of them don't know about it...

 

[piasabird]

How about paying the Jury a living wage. People in Jail are paid more than a jurry! Jury duty pay constitutes slave labor. If you want a good jury you are also going to have to have to force the Parties to accept the Jurors. Typically lawyers want to throw people off of the jury if they have any backbone. I say have a lottery and force the parties involved to take the first 12 people who are qualified legally.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Having just served on a jury, I can think of other ways to improve it.

1)Both the plantiff and the defendants backgrounds were purposely left blank for us.
Giving us very little information to gauge the amount of credibility to lend to thier testimony.

2)When it became a sticking point with the jury exactly what the testimony of a witness was.
Some remembered it one way others did not.
We were not allowed to see or hear the record of the testimony to clear up the discrepancy.

3)The state and law enforcement people did such a crappy job of preparing thier case, it made it impossable to do our job with any degree of certainty in either direction.

the result of the trial (without going into details) was innocent on one count and a hung jury on the second count.

I also recently served on a jury (rape case) and agree with 1 and 2. In our case we were told the defendant was a convicted felon but we were not told what he was previously convicted of. I don't understand why they would tell us he was a felon without giving any details. For all we knew he could have been convicted of some drug charge (irrelevant) or he could have been convicted of a previous rape (relevant).

We needed to review some testimony and it was quite an ordeal. First we had to notify the judge and then wait forever for the clerk to come in and read out loud the parts of the testimony we were unsure of. With technology the way it is, every juror should have electronic access to the transcripts in the jury room. This would be nice since you wouldn't need to take notes during testimony, allowing you to concentrate & listen better.

This was a 10 year old cold case that came to court after new DNA tests found a match to a current prisoner, who I later learned was in prison for 'forced penetration with a foreign object'. After a week and a half it was a hung jury.