The Sixth Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. But just how to best ensure the neutrality and efficiency of that jury is a complex question that involves everything from the selection of jurors to their final voting process.
Oregon is currently one of only two states that allow non-unanimous juries to convict someone of a crime. In all other states except Louisiana, if even one juror dissents from his peers decision, the jury is hung and a mistrial is declared. But in Oregon only ten jurors are required to convict people accused of non-capital offenses.
This Oregon anomaly dates back to 1934 when a ballot initiative changed the unanimous system. Back then, when gangster intimidation of juries was a very real threat, the argument was that while one juror could perhaps be swayed to change his vote, it was unlikely that an entire jury could be persuaded by outside parties. Oregon’s experiment was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Apodaca v. Oregon more than twenty-five years ago.
But the Oregon Office of Public Defense Services is asking the Supreme Court to reconsider. This week lawyers will be filing a petition with the Oregon Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court in two cases, challenging Oregon’s non-unanimous system. They say that a unanimous verdict is needed in order to convict beyond a reasonable doubt – and include all jurors’ voices.
A spokesman for the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office compares the likelihood of Oregon’s jury law changing to the chance a snowball has of surviving in a very warm place. He says there is broad political support for Oregon’s custom. What do you think? Have you served on a jury? Have you been convicted or acquitted by ten out of twelve people?
What does your experience tell you about whether non-capital jury verdicts should be unanimous or not?
I’ve only ever been seated on a federal jury (and that more than twenty years ago), so I have no knowledge of this. I personally would prefer the system to be the standard all 12 in agreement, but am willing to listen to arguments for keeping the current Oregon approach.
Our case deliberations required eleven of us to convince the one hold-out. Having been convinced by the prosecution, we were finally able to confidently talk through the uncertainties she had. When we came in with the final verdict, that confidence assured us that if/when we were confronted by the press, we would be able to stand behind our decisions with solidarity that justice had been served.
(Dave, sorry for the brevity on this one, it was not up last night for me to think through.)
The lesson of "12 Angry Men" was that the majority can be wrong. If I were selected to serve on a jury that could simply override what I felt were reasonable doubts in order to deliver a verdict and go home I would have to refuse to participate.
It is a mockery of the system to select 12 people and then only have to listen to 10.
I have been selected for jury duty several times but have never been selected for a jury. I understand that is because layers usually don't select jurors who are highly educated professionals.
As with much of the US political and justice system I feel it is very badly corrupted by those with too much money. I feel the concept of selecting juries has great potential for corruption. Those with money can hire experts in jury selection. My solution would to select the jury by lottery and those selected could only be removed if they personally knew people involved in the case no other reason. (I believe this is more similar to the British system). This would be much fairer than the current system and less corruptable.
It also seems to me that current system in Oregon of needing only 10 votes may lead to less potential for this corruption although I have not really had time to think it though.
The influence of money on our system does interfere with administration of justice.
Eyewitness testimony is an example of problems with relying upon juries. Studies have shown that this testimony is the most unreliable because the human brain fills in memory impressions with beliefs without the person realizing it; yet studies have also shown eyewitness testimony is the most compelling to juries!
There do need to be other reasons to exempt someone from serving. I know a woman who was raped just prior to being chosen for jury duty. One of the effects of the crime influenced her to tell me she would promise to give the defendant a fair trial before convicting him! She was picked to be on the jury in a murder trial in Portland. I called the prosecuter and told him what she had said to me. She was then removed from the jury.
I was once one of two on a jury who disagreed w/the verdict. It was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. The young woman was aquitted because the rest of the jurors couldn't see how she would possibly even know she had hit the pedestrian because she was "so drunk." I tried until I was blue in the face to convince them that being too drunk to know you hit someone and took off was not a reason to aquit someone! I left the courtroom after two days of trial and deliberation feeling like there was absolutely no reason for me to be there. The prosecutor suveyed the jury and looked shocked that only two of us agreed with her.
As a former prosecutor in Washington State, I find the idea of non-unanimous juries anathema. The idea that unanimous juries will result in more hung juries and delay is laughable. 48 states and the entire federal judiciary have managaged to do it. Why not Oregon? The requirement for a unanimous jury puts the State to a rigorous test before an individual is deprived of their liberty. This is the way it should be. Non-unanimous juries allow for lazy prosecutions and sloppy trial skills.
The prosecutor says 90% of retrials after hung juries ultimately result in conviction anyway, so requiring unanimous decisions will not make a significant difference.
Why do I think this subject is news worthy? Because it could affect myself or someone in my community. I feel that it is OPB's responsibility to inform their listeners of things happening in Oregon that has an effect on them but they may not know about. This is a subject that had very little discussion before and now thanks to OPB there will be open conversation and let the public create their own opinion about this. I feel that the catalyst for discussion is essential and I thank OPB for providing it.
I heard John Foote complain that the system is weighted too heavily on the rights of the accused.
Would he care to explain what the purpose of having a system at all is if not to defend those rights?
John Foote did not say that the system was weighted too heavily on the side of the defendant. He felt that is weighted SUFFICIENTLY.
There are countless steps taken to protect the accused from being wrongly convicted, from measures required of the police in making arrests, to the requirement of a grand jury, to the jury system itself. This is not system designed for finding innocent people guilty and I truly believe that no prosecutor is in the business of trying to convict individuals they do not believe are guilty.
Thank you OPB for bringing this issue to light! Our jury and trial always seems to be slightly mysterious to me. Listening to day I've learned a lot as i thought that all juries had to be unanimous, and it's not the case. What I find interesting is even though changing the system like Emilie quoted has a snowball's chance in a very hot place, Mr. Bronson seems to think that the subject isn't news worthy. I think he's wrong, and Mr Bronson, if you are reading or hear this, my question to you is why do you feel the need to keep this discussion "under the table" or "behind closed doors"?
QUOTE
"Mr. Bronson seems to think that the subject isn't news worthy. I think he's wrong, and Mr Bronson, if you are reading or hear this, my question to you is why do you feel the need to keep this discussion "under the table" or "behind closed doors"
RESPONSE
I think you mean Mr. Foote. I am the attorney challenging the system, and I personally welcome a public debate on any issue concerning our civic system.
Responding to John Foote's comment that defendents receive much protection, I counter that point that the jail system and the plea bargain system corrupt the administration of justice. I pled quilty because I was tortured in jail and on the way to jail; I pled guilty in order to get out of jail and to avoid the risk of more time. One way I was tortured in jail was through lack of sleep; the guards would talk loudly and laugh in front of my cell all night. Some ways I was tortured on the way to jail was by being held in a tiny cage not large enough to move my legs, being deprived of water and bathroom, having medicine withheld, and having no sleep due to having heavy metal music and prison movies blasted through a speaker next to my ear all night long. Many of these actions were illegal but there is no enforcement of the laws. Interstate transportation of the accused has benn contracted to a national private company in this country.
Regarding my defense, my court appointed attorney threw away the box containing my case files; he told me he wouldn't think of giving me any advice; he refused to submit the one document that would have instantly proved my innocence; he would not request a bail hearing, he wanted to go on vacation so I had three extra months in jail waiting to appear in court, etc.
One person in our jail was held 4 years without yet being charged.
Other states require jury unanimity, and it has not destroyed the system (or destroyed public confidence). Presenting this proposed change as a judicial apocalypse flies in the face of the experience of every other state in the nation except Louisiana. Unanimous juries force people on the jury to think about the evidence, and try to persuade holdouts with the evidence.
Also, any prosecutor who believes that 100% of the defendants he's prosecuted were guilty is statistically incorrect. Look at DNA testing results exonerating inmates who have been in prison for decades. And I say that as someone who worked for the prosecutor's office in another state, and is very pro-prosecution.
John (the prosecutor) comes off a little less than ingenuous here. John would be the first to disqualify me from a jury if I was wearing a FIJA button on my jacket.
I'm not hearing any of the advocates for a unanimous jury acknowledge the fact that innocent people are arrested and in fact have been convicted. Evidence for this can be found in the work of the Innocence Project.
After having read over the other comments, it seems that my experience is in the minority. I was seated on a jury where two dissented (I was one of them). Our deliberations were level headed, calm, and logically considered the case. I at no point felt that my opinion was discounted. What I did note was that the defendant did not have as good an attorney as the prosecutor.
In 1996 I served on my first jury in Clackamas County. I was totally unaware and was number 11 in the room. The first 10 said not guilty before I even was allowed to express what I felt. This trial was a sex abuse case and with how this was set up, I hope I never ever have to serve again. I will never forget this horrible event watching people's personality flip from when they were picked to be on the jury to when they deliberated a verdict.
There need to be many changes in the jury system. If the jury thinks at least one member has deficits in reasoning, the jury should be able to inform the judge of this.
Some juries refuse to find the defendant "guilty but insane" because they believe that if a person could plan a crime, he could not be insane. This is not in agreement with social science.
Judges should be on panels rather than on their own. especially in child custody cases.
Non-violent criminals should be held at home instead of in an institution, which would benefit society and would help the criminal learn to live among us and not offend, because most criminals do re-enter society but do not learn how to be law-abiding in prison.
In response to the accusation that OPB chooses stories on behalf of defendants over public safety.. I agree, and I believe this to be a virtue of OPB not a vice.. Let's not forget America was founded on the concept of protecting our citizens from overbearing government.. OPB protects this tradition by speaking for individual rights over group safety.. If we choose safety over fairness we would be no better than a totalitarian state.
As a former Assistant Court Executive in California, which only allows unanimous verdicts by a 12-person jury, and now Trial Court Administrator for a judicial district in Oregon, the non-unanimous verdict is a new concept for me that I am not comfortable with.
I truly believe that a requirement for unanimity instills a higher sense of responsibility, as well as the imperative for cooperation among those selected to serve on a jury. Although I recognize the likelihood of a greater number of "hung" juries with a unanimous verdict requirement than we see with the 10-2 requirement (and we do see them), it is my personal belief that justice is better served with the expectation that all members of a jury panel will concur in a finding of guilty.
I'm glad you finally responded to John Foote's comment about why this topic is an important issue. Attacking the messenger (OPB) is only a way of not answering the question. This topic is important to those who have been found guilty and not guilty, and to society in general.
I'm an attorney who has tried hundreds of cases. I have even tried cases against Mr. Foote when he was a deputy prosecutor in Multnomah County. The issues of cost and delay are non issues. Most juries take their responsibilities seriously. They want to come to a conclusion. Hung juries are rare.
I was especially impressed by the first caller. I also see jurors who are racially prejudiced, but do not or cannot admit it. I also believe that few jurors accept the law that accused persons are presumed innocent. A unanimous jury would offer some balance to those problems.
Very interesting arguments from both sides, I'll be thinking about this for a while.
I was selected for jury duty and then got picked to be the foreman on the Grand Jury. In the future I would volunteer to be in that position. I recommend jury duty, boy you sure learn about some of what it takes to be a citizen when you are in the position of deciding whether the government, in the form of the Police and District Attorney, have a real case against a fellow citizen and you decide if they can try that person or if they cannot bring their case. You get to question the police and the DA and can even require them to inve
07/22/2008 4:52:02 AM
