1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.”

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