A jury's duty is to determine if a charge is a reasonable interpretation of a law, and if so, that it applied to the defendants; and if, with all of the available evidence presented and dispassionately assessed, it supports a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A just jury system has justice as its sole goal and guiding principle; however, for jury trials in the USA, they are often antithetical. To understand why, a critical evaluation of what has become customary in the trial process must be made. Only then can be found a means of correcting the condition.

There are twelve opportunities for jury tampering used by the 'criminal law industry' (which include judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys) to increase the likeliness of desirable rulings. While some people may disagree with some of the areas, and members of the industry with most of them, few would deny that the American jury system is more concerned with spectacle, financial gain, fame, blame, and the exercise of power than in determining guilt and dispensing appropriate justice.

When a jury is being selected, questions beyond a confirmation that the prospective jurist is a citizen, has obtained the minimum age, resides within the municipality in which the trial will take place, is available and will not suffer undue hardship, or has a relationship of some kind with the defendant or plaintive -- is jury manipulation. When a court sanctions the rejection of people who meet all the requirements, it is undermining the constitutionally mandated right to a fair and impartial jury trial. All citizens are harmed, not just those with an interest in the outcome of the trial.

The skill of the prosecuting and defending attorneys in picking jury members who may be sympathetic to their side has a greater impact on the outcome of the trial than evidence provided during it.

This custom of 'stacking deck' for or against the defendant insures that justice is always secondary to winning.

When the prosecuting and/or defending attorneys meet in secret with the judge prior to the trial and discuss any aspect of it and the content of such meetings are excluded from the trial transcript --- such omissions constitute a conspiracy against the rights and responsibilities of the jury in performing its duty to evaluate everything concerning the case.

When the prosecuting and defending attorneys consult with the judge during the trial for any purpose --- beyond the hearing of the jury and its content is excluded from the trial transcript --- the exclusion constitutes a conspiracy against the rights and responsibilities of the jury in performing its duty to evaluate everything concerning the case.

Judges who sustain objections that restrain the presentation and evaluation of any evidence by prosecuting and defending attorneys (who are not acting in a manner disruptive of the court's proceedings) --- are impeding the jury's duty to evaluate everything concerning the case before they make a decision.

It is up to the jury to decide for themselves the relevance of all evidence including any that may be extraneous to the case, not the judge.

When a judge excludes evidence because he or she believes that it may be deficient in substance, tainted in its collection, irrelevant, or for any other reason � the judge is acting illegally.

The prosecuting and defending attorneys are required by law and threat of punishment to present all evidence to the jury --- without exclusion.

They are also required to assist the jury in their evaluation of all evidence, both for and against the interests of their clients (plaintive or defendant).

It is the responsibility of the jury to decide the true relevance of all evidence.

The exclusion of evidence, as occurs often in the USA courts, is a crime that, by agreement of the members of the Legal Industry, is almost never prosecuted.

Evidently, the members believe they have a right to conspire against the rights and responsibilities of the jury. Prosecuting and defending attorneys, and judges have no fear of self-incrimination on record. It has become so much the custom that 'these fish don't know their wet!'

When the members of the jury are not provided with a written copy of the law or laws which the prosecutor alleges that the defendant has broken --- prior to the start of the trial --- constitutes a conspiracy against the rights and responsibilities of the jury to have such information as will help them fully understand the basis for prosecution.

The jury must be allowed time to read and consider the law or laws prior to the start of the trial so that they may compare what is presented as a transgression to their interpretation of the law or laws.

Is there any doubt that jury verdicts may be swayed by fears of retribution from the community or supporters of the defendant, if not the defendant him or herself? The jury must be protected from this possibility.

While it is the right of defendants to confront those who testify against them, it is not their right to see or know who is on the jury, neither is it the right of the community.

The spectacle of the trial, the theatrical presentations of the prosecuting and defending attorneys, the defendant or defendants physically present, as well as witnesses --- constitutes a conspiracy to influence the jury in its evaluation of the facts.

The jury should be and can be hidden from the effects of the presentation.

This would eliminate much, if not all, of the innate human prejudices of the jury members and result in confidence in their final judgment. Transcripts of everything, read by them, and to them by an impersonal computerized voice, will eliminate such influence that the presentation of facts has over the facts themselves. This could take place during the trial, and/or at any time after the trial, including during jury deliberations.

The name of the defendant or defendants need not be provided to the jury. In cases of significant notoriety, such disclosures act against the objective of providing justice.

The jury has the right to present questions, at any time during the trial, to any prosecuting or defending attorney, defendant, plaintive, witness or the judge and to obtain a written response which would be included in the transcript of the trial. (The defendant can refuse to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination.)

Such questions may include any statement made in court by prosecution, defense, judge and witness; their opinions on the evidence provided, and the applicability of the law breached.

Juries also have the right to request evaluation of evidence by themselves and by experts other than those presented by the prosecution and defense.

It is only custom that prevents juries from exercising their rights which may also include requesting the replacement of a judge that is impeding the exercise of their duties!

A printed copy of the the judge's instructions should be presented to the jury when they retire to deliberate. The jury would then be able to compare the instructions to the copy each of them has of the actual law (allegedly breached) that they received at the start of the trial.

The judge's instructions should not include his or her interpretations of the law that the defendant is alleged to have breached.

It is the responsibility of jury members to read and form their own interpretation of the law � before the start of the trial --- and use it to evaluate the defendant's acts as presented by plaintive and defendant councils.

If a law or specific aspects of it is too complicated for members of the jury to interpret on his or her own, then it is in fact deficient and may be considered unenforceable. Unfortunately, because most laws are written by lawyers, for the potential benefit of lawyers, such complications are all to common.

The jury should be able to request a suspension of the trial, until the legislature that wrote the law, clarifies the intent of its content. The legislature should have an "Intent of Law Board" to provide feedback to the legislature on the actual performance of its laws�so that they may be reissued with changes if appropriate. The suspended trial would continue after a response is obtained from the legislature, even if that response is a refusal to consider the jury's questions.

The jury should be able to consider the relevance of the charge to the evidence presented and come to consensus. They may, however consult with the judge and rely on the judge's experience in defining such charges.

The jury's verdict could, however, be different; for example, a defendant charged with first degree murder being found guilty of second degree instead.

The jury in a guilty decision must be allowed to proscribe the remedies as they interpret the law's relevance to the case -- not the judge. They may, however consult with the judge and rely on the judge's experience in stipulating remedies.

The actual intent of the defendant in the mater would have greater relevance in the deliberations. A defendant may be found 'not guilty as charged,' but still 'guilty' -- of something else. If this happens, the jury's verdict may require another trial with a different jury.

A jury can see in reality the results of a law in practice better than those who wrote and approved that law. Thousands of laws are written each year, support by vote and official signature, by people with little or no relationship to the consequences or those laws. While elected representatives have the constitutional right to write laws and approve them, their applicability is a matter of judgment of a jury.

A feedback mechanism must be established to prevent judges from legislating; an unconstitutional act that, when it has occurred, the legislature has been too intimidated to resist --- to its lasting shame and to the detriment of the citizens who voted them into office to represent their interests. The legislative feedback mechanism should be a special "super" committee that includes: majority and minority leadership of Senate and Congress, US Attorney General, and representatives of the Federal. Plus, a subcommittee for feedback from state courts. Feedback answers the question "is this what you ment?" If not, the super committee would then be able to fast tract a clarification with appropriate examples of compliance and non-compliance through the legialative process to the President for approval.

Foundation For A Just Jury System copyright � 1997, 2001, and 2006 by Ken Lachnicht

Visit our

Enter the library through its Opening page

 Return to top