What’s a Jury For ?

When a legal dispute comes to trial, the argument is almost always between two lawyers, in front of a judge who is also a lawyer.  The job of the lawyers for the plaintiff and the defense are tasked with seeing that their clients get the best deal possible within the limits imposed by the law.  The Judge is tasked with insuring that the law is not violated, and with making a final decision based on the verdict of the jury. 

The jury is a curious institution.  It came into our law from English common law, where it was established by the Magna Carta in 1215. 

Under English law in the middle ages, the King made the law.  That is, the law was what ever the King said it was.  As long as the King was a good guy, this was not a bad idea, but eventually a good king would be replaced by a bad king, and the nation would suffer. 

We are all familiar with the story of Robin Hood.  The good king, Richard the Lion-hearted, went off to the crusades and left his little brother Prince John in charge.  King Richard, returning from the crusade that made him a hero of Christendom, was kidnaped and locked into a castle in Germany.  Prince John was the bad guy in the story.  When Richard vanished, PJ wanted to be king, but he needed for Richard to be dead.  Eventually, Richard was ransomed and returned to take over his kingdom, and all were happy. 

But the story does not end there.  Richard went off to battle and got himself killed.  PJ inherited the kingdom.  Now he was king, and could do pretty much what he wanted.  If he liked my castle, he could make a law that would result in my being guilty and my estate being confiscated and given to him.  Soon the nobles of England decided that the situation was not to be endured and revolted.  They were able to force King John to sign a legal document called the Magna Carta, which imposed limits on the power of the king. 

One clause in the Magna Carta said that a person accused of a crime had a right to be tried by “a jury of his peers.” 

If KJ accused a baron of a crime, his guilt would be decided by a jury of other barons.  Of course, the other barons on the jury would decide that if the accusation were false or just ridiculous, the verdict would be not guilty.  Likely the jury would be sympathetic because “He’s one of us.” or “I could be next.”

Today we live in a country that started with a document that said “…all men are created equal…”, so if I am the defendant, I can have a jury of twelve ordinary citizens, since we are all ordinary citizens.  The court’s decision cannot go against me if even just one of the twelve says no. 

The success of the jury system depends on the sense of fairness of ordinary citizens.  If I am accused under an unjust law, the jury can find me not guilty, no matter what the law says.  The judge may serve the law, but the jury serves justice as they see it, not the law.  Thus, the jury is a defense against unjust laws. 

As we teach our children to be fair and just, the jury system can result in fairness and justice.  The system is not perfect, but frequently it does very well.  Consider a few cases. 

Bubba found a pretty feather, and hung it on his rear-view mirror.  Then he was arrested and the judge fined him $500 for “possession of a body part from an endangered species.” If he had a jury trial, and if I were on the jury, he would not have been convicted.  I would have refused to enforce that ridiculous law. 

Hephzibah bought a cup of hot coffee at the McDonald’s drive-through, and spilled it in her lap.  She sued for damages because she got burned.  Because the jury consisted of poor people who had been indoctrinated with the idea that big corporations are evil, the jury awarded Hephzibah seven million dollars in damages.  If I were on the jury, I might have been generous and unfair enough to make McDonald’s pay her medical bills, but I would not accept that she should get rich for being stupid. 

In Missouri a couple who saw rioters coming toward their house got out their guns and stood out front to defend it.  The rioters, considering “the better part of valor”, passed them by.  They were arrested for threatening the rioters with guns, convicted, and penalized.  I doubt that, if they had a jury trial, the prosecution could have convinced all twelve jurors to find them guilty. [I would argue that by showing the guns to the rioters rather than waiting inside with guns ready, they likely saved the lives of some rioters.

A juror, like nobody else in the court system, has the power to do justice in spite of the law. 

In a criminal case, the jury means that your chance of being convicted without convincing evidence is pretty small.  If even one of the twelve jurors has serious doubts, you are not found guilty. 

What’s a jury for?  A jury is to do JUSTICE, no matter what all those lawyers and laws have to say.  A juror is free to decide something important, even in spite of the law.  A juror can do something good for his society, something such as we ordinary people seldom have a chance to do!