40. Judge vs. Jury (part 2)
Two basic assumptions underlie the American system of jury trials. The first is that trial by jury is "the spinal column of American democracy" (Scalia). Or, if that's a bit too anatomical for your taste, it's also "the grand bulwark of [our] liberties" (Blackstone) and "the very palladium of free government” (Hamilton).
The second assumption is that jurors are overly-emotional morons, incapable of thinking clearly about anything.
For example, a person charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm has a constitutional right to a jury trial. The bulwark of liberty is there f0r him. But if the jurors were to learn the name of the person's prior felony, the probability is high that they would be so carried away with shock and abhorrence that they would convict the defendant for that reason alone, regardless of the other evidence, their oaths, the judge's instructions, and any shred of civic or moral responsibility they may possess. They would, in short, "misuse" the evidence.
The very idea that a jury can "misuse" evidence is a peculiar one. Any use a jury makes of evidence must, by definition, seem reasonable to at least twelve people. (Anyway, if we don't assume juries are rational, what's the point of jury trials? Surely American democracy doesn't have a twisted spinal column!) It follows that the evidence is probative of the point for which the jury considers it, because otherwise the jury's use of it wouldn't be reasonable. Back in 1947, the Supreme Court summed it up nicely: "Much evidence of real and substantial probative value goes out on considerations irrelevant to its probative weight but relevant to possible misunderstanding or misuse by the jury."
To understand why it's "misuse" for a jury to draw reasonable conclusions from "evidence of real and substantial probative value", you have to turn to the second basic assumption. In a recent unpublished decision, the Washington Court of Appeals explained: "When evidence is likely to stimulate an emotional response rather than a rational decision, a danger of unfair prejudice exists." That is, there are occasions when juries are likely to make irrational, emotional decisions.
In the particular case under consideration, one woman - woman A - told a male acquaintance that she suspected he had something to do with woman B's mysterious disappearance. (In fact, he had killed her, as was subsequently proved.) Immediately after woman A voiced her suspicion, he attacked her, tried to rape her and eventually wound up masturbating on her. He was convicted of "indecent liberties."
The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, ruling that there was too great a danger that the jury convicted him of indecent liberties against woman A not on the basis of her extremely detailed account of the crime, but rather on the basis of her suspicion that he had committed a different crime against woman B.
If you accept the first assumption about juries, the Washington court's decision is simply ludicrous. Palladia of free government don't act like that. But if you accept the second assumption, the decision makes perfect sense. The ability to toggle back and forth between the two assumptions while keeping at bay any insight into their contradiction is an important skill for any judge to master.
Saturday, January 7, 2006 at 02:49PM in Judging the judges, Juries
Reader Comments (5)
nokiawad9981
Go on this way.You found an interesting issue to develop.
ksoleifdjj388
What i perceive in gist is as follows :-
The jury system has the potential to empower the lower castes ( lower strata , the economically backwards as well ) .
It will empower the women , simply by accepting 3 : 2 male to female Jury ratio.
It has the potential to change the mindset of the people at large . A fisherman's wife , a dalit sweeper's wife as Jury delivering justice to erstwhile RAJA of X and Nawab of Y in full public view will be beginning of the end of Elitist Judicial system in India.
Thanks for sharing.