By Kemarah Thermidor '27
The trial process begins with an envelope in the mailbox, the first step in a system that aims to enforce fair judgment in the eyes of the public. The “right to a speedy and public trial” is arguably the foundation of citizens’ influence and impact concerning the law’s execution of justice and might as well be a defendant’s best friend. (1) While the jury system isn’t without fault, great strides have been made in cultivating a structure that will fulfill the aim of giving individuals a fair trial. More specifically, enforcements that dissuade racial and gender discrimination along with the instructions regarding jury deliberation are key promoters of a fair, public trial as the law promises.
The value of the jury system lies in the multifaceted diversity it promotes, whether in background, opinion, or culture. Due to the difficulty of remaining objective as a juror, a jury featuring people bringing different perspectives to a case is vital. Justice Thurgood Marshall said it best in Peters v. Kiff: “When any large and identifiable segment of the community is excluded from jury service, the effect is to remove from the jury room qualities of human nature and varieties of human experience.” (2) This sentiment was officially enforced in 1986 following a discriminatory voir dire—the interview process where potential jurors are de-selected—in which the prosecution seemed to finalize an all-white jury purposely; Batson v. Kentucky led to the Supreme Court’s ruling that “by denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race, the State also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror.” (3) The precedent was further expanded in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., which decided that striking potential jurors on the basis of gender was unconstitutional. (4) With restrictions on discrimination, juries can operate as a group of varied opinions and backgrounds, leading to verdicts that better reflect what a larger population would decide. Some argue that promoting a jury consisting of differences in thoughts and experiences is unnecessary where the verdict would remain the same; however, this assumption fails to consider the value of public support for the legal system in upholding the law’s credibility. A jury that reflects the general demographics of a larger community will promote trust from the public, accomplishing the goal of a society that feels justly represented.
Developments in jury fairness also extend to the structure of jury deliberation. With the different perspectives and schools of thought that a jury may consist of, jury deliberation is organized to ensure all angles are factored into the conclusion. In 1896, Allen v. United States set the precedent of encouraging further jury instruction for reconsideration and discussion when a unanimous decision is not reached. (5) Careful wording of supplemental instruction is provided to prevent coercion and clarify jurors’ rights to their convictions. (6) This is shown when straightforward instructions make jurors feel more confident in their analysis of evidence and the decision to reach a verdict. (7) People v. Collins highlighted the necessity of a thorough comprehension of instructions by jurors when the California Supreme Court found the jury to be wrongfully directed concerning faulty evidence; time and money dispensed before the reversal of the court’s conviction could have been saved if jurors had been given substantial explanations for how to weigh evidence and deliberate. (8)
While not perfect, our jury system is effective in progressing toward fairness. A major aspect that may limit the respect the jury system receives is widely based on the public perception of the legal system. Fortunately, a 2023 survey conducted by the National Center for State Courts reveals a slight rise in the percentage of Americans who trust the courts. (9) This positive increase correlates with the developments the jury system has implemented to ensure justice is served and the Sixth Amendment is upheld, but there are still almost 40% of individuals who remain skeptical. (10) Improvements in trust in the legal system lie in the continual advancements of ensured justice and fairness within the jury system. Addressing elements such as racial and socioeconomic bias in jury selection, informing juries during trials, and adopting practices that improve the process of decision-making are areas that can be focused on for those improvements. In the meantime, we can contribute to the virtues our legal system aims to uphold by executing our civic right and duty to serve on a jury when called.
Endnotes
Constitution Congress, Amdt6.4.1 Overview of Right to Trial by Jury, CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-4-1/ALDE_00013124/.
Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972), Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/493/.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/.
J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/127/.
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/164/492/.
Chapter 32 Instructions to the Jury, 16 (2018), https://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/Ch%2032%20Instructions%20to%20the%20Jury_0.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fdefendermanuals.sog.unc.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2FCh%252032%2520Instructions%2520to%2520the%2520Jury_0.pdf%0AVisible%3A%200%25%20.
Administrator, Juries and Judges’ Instructions - iResearchNet, Psychology (2016), https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/trial-consulting/juries-and-judges-instructions/.
People v. Collins, Justia Law, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/68/319.html.
West Virginia et al., Chief Justice Beth Walker // SURVEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, 7 (2023), https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0038/96878/SSC_2023_Presentation.pdf.
Ibid., 6.
Comments