Recommendations for Changing Jury System Eliminate peremptory challenges-Batson case Eliminate or restrict “voir dire” Allow note-taking during trial Allow for non-unanimous verdicts Allow jurors to ask questions Eliminate all professional exemptions Enforce jury summonses Do not sequester or request change of venue simply because of publicity

Batson v. Kentucky 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986) Petitioner claimed denied equal protection (6th and 14th amendment) of the law through State’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude members of his race from jury Previous cases held that jury venire (pool) requires a cross-section of community but petit jury itself did not Ct held here that Equal Protection Claude forbids prosecutors to challenge jurors solely on account of their race Burden is on defendant to show that there is purposeful discrimination by prosecutor Marshall concurs-peremptory challenges should be abolished

Unanimous Verdict Unanimous verdict has stood as distinctive and defining feature of jury trials Prior to 1972, no case had disputed unanimous verdict Over 30 states today use juries that are made up of fewer than 12 but only Louisiana and Oregon authorize felony convictions non-unanimous Why unanimity so important?-requires consensus, reason and disempowers prejudice-upholds Aristotelian ideal of justice Practically, more hung juries Studies show majority verdicts leave jurors more uncertain, factually vague Unanimous verdicts legitimize state’s coercive power

Unanimous Verdicts (cont.) In Brazil-jurors do not deliberate, vote individually Non-unanimous verdicts would alter institutional design of American jury Would no longer require jurors to approach justice through conversation and persuasion Majority verdicts invites assertion of individual beliefs and values over consensus model.

Jury Reforms (cont.) Reduce influence of professional jury consultants-gives lawyers unfair partisan advantage Make jury instructions more comprehensible and give jurors copy in deliberation room Juries, as members of the community, as peers, are essential to temper exercise of potentially abusive power

Juries and Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience-acts of conscience which lead to breaking the law to uphold ethical or moral principles How do jurors evaluate these acts Jury nullification is an option where civil disobedience is on trial Juries will ignore the law if find invalid/immoral

Jury Nullification Jurors have an inherent right to to set aside instructions of the judge to reach a verdict based on their own consciences and the defendant has the right to have the jury so instructed

How jurors evaluate acts of civil disobedience Martin Luther King- “one has not only a legal responsibility but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” “one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.”

Our Faltering Jury Jury system assures community participation in law Vehicle for participation in democratic society Jury verdicts have led to social unrest