¶ … Rational for Selecting Juries Page 3 Generalizations about juries

Page 4 General comments: jury service

Page 4 General comments: summoning juries

Page 5 General comments: Simpson jury

Page 6 Jurors errors and DNA analysis

Role of Juries

Close Scrutiny of Juries and Jury Selection

Role of Juries

There is rarely any debate when it comes to the pivotal role of juries in the United States' system of justice. It is the "foundation of the American justice system" and is "Vital to our democracy and our system of checks and balances," according to the American Judicature Society (AJS). The AJS goes on to call the jury system " ... the fundamental safeguard of our constitutional liberties." Certainly it is not perfect and it can be manipulated by shrew lawyers in some cases, but true, fair, outcomes are possible and those outcomes depend on the quality of the jurors who are chosen to serve (AJS).

Rationale for selecting the role of juries as a topic

Because jurors are sworn to protect the rights of citizens accused of wrongdoing, and because jurors and judges -- in a kind of legal teamwork approach -- work together to "put into practice the principles of our great heritage of freedom," this topic is very important and worthy of research (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York). Alert students and others paying attention to legal issues that occur in other countries can see that justice is often times non-existent, as people are charged with crimes and face arbitrary standards as to their chances for fairness. But in Western societies and in America specifically, the founding fathers created a democracy that, while not perfect, allows the greatest possibility for justice and fairness to be meted out to citizens, no matter what ethnicity or religion of color of skin. Hence, researching how juries work and why they are vital to democracy is the reason why this paper is presented.

Generalizations about juries and justice

While jury service is important and meaningful in the context of a democratic society, for many Americans, jury service is " ... inconvenient or even a bit of a burden," the AJS explains in its literature on juries. However, serving on a jury is a " ... small price to pay for the privileges and protections of our government," and moreover, with freedom and constitutionally-guaranteed rights come responsibilities, and jury duty comes in the same vein as paying taxes and voting (AJS). Basically, the American Judicature Society explains, all Americans are "partners and shareholders in the state and the nation," and jurors owe it to their fellow citizens and to the government -- that is made up of all the people -- to serve when the call comes from the local judicial jurisdiction.

General Comments: How to be excused from jury service

The Business Insider publication offers several ways to be excused from jury duty, and they are: a) explain that you've already made up your mind about the case; b) point out that you have personal involvement that relates to the case; c) if it's a murder case, explain that you are opposed to the death penalty; d) if you are self-employed serving on a jury would interfere with your ability to earn a living; and e) if you have a disability serving might be too challenging (Fuchs, 2012). Granted, some of these might sound slightly evasive, but there are some people who simply should not serve on juries because of their lack of openness or their cynical approach to justice. On the other hand, as the American Judicature Society explains, jurors do not need to " ... have knowledge of the law or special skills to serve ... they must use common sense, keep an open mind, and be fair, impartial and honest" (AJS).

General Comments: How are jurors summoned...

Questions a prospective juror might expect to be asked include: are you a U.S. citizen over 18 years of age; have you been convicted of a felony; where were you born; do you speak fluent English; have you ever been accused of racial bias; what kind of work do you do?
Also, each side (prosecution and defense) can remove any juror if they seem to exhibit bias in some way towards the accused or a witness, and each side is given a fixed number of challenges to prospective jurors. Jurors can be isolated so they cannot come into contact with media reports about the case, and the verdict given must be unanimous among juries.

General Comments: The O.J. Simpson juror selection process

In the O.J. Simpson case -- which is a good example of how jurors can be selected to in an attempt to favor the accused person -- when jurors were being interviewed, they were asked questions like these: "Have you ever had any personal interaction with a celebrity?" "Please name the person for whom you are a great fan?" "Do you have any affiliation with professional sports?" "Have you ever experienced domestic violence in your home?" "Do you think using physical force on a fellow family member is sometimes justified?" "How do you feel about interracial marriage?" "Before the Simpson case, did you read any book, articles or magazines concerning DNA analysis?" "Do you watch any of the early evening 'tabloid news' programs such as 'Hard Copy,' or 'Current Affair'?" (umkc.edu).

In the Simpson case, jury selection lasted two months and was very contentious. The defense consultant "coordinated massive data on each one of the jury finalists"; the jury that eventually gave Simpson a "not guilty" verdict was made up of 8 blacks, 2 Latinos, one half-Caucasian / half-Native American, and one Caucasian female (umkc.edu). Defense attorney Johnny Cochran wanted the trial in Los Angeles and not in Santa Monica (where the killings took place) because in Santa Monica the jury " ... would have been mostly white" (umkc.edu).

But poll data showed that most whites thought Simpson was guilty, and most blacks believed he was innocent, hence, getting a jury from downtown Los Angeles meant most jurors would be black (umkc.edu). In his closing arguments, Cochran said, "Keep your eyes on the prize," meaning, the goal was to find Simpson innocent despite the fact that his blood was found at the murder scene, in his car, in his driveway and elsewhere. It was an example of how "justice" is only a matter of how well defense attorneys impact jury selection, and how they present the case. A look at the final jury composition shows that: a) none read a newspaper on a regular basis but eight watched tabloid TV shows; b) five thought it was okay to use force on a member of the family; c) five said they had experienced a negative involvement with police; and d) nine thought that because Simpson was a pro-athlete he was less likely to also be a murderer (umkc.edu).

Analysis of a case where jurors were wrong and DNA entered into the picture

Sometimes jurors are wrong, and are so influence by the talented rhetoric of lawyers they make errors in their decision-making process. The O.J. Simpson case is certainly evidence of that; later, the family of Nicole Simpson sued Simpson as a civil case, and won that decision.

Meantime, as to DNA and how it affects the innocence or guilt of a suspect -- and how juries can get it wrong -- the story of nineteen-year-old Darryl Hunt, an African-American, is germane to this issue.

Hunt was tried in 1984 for the rape and murder of a woman named Deborah Sykes, a copy editor. Attorney Mark Rabil was appointed to represent Hunt. No physical evidence could be found that would link Hunt to the murder, but in a photo line-up, he was pegged as the murderer. Soon thereafter, Hunt's girlfriend was arrested on another charge, and when she was taken into custody, she said Darryl Hunt had confessed the murder to her (Ross, 2014).

Later, she changed her story albeit her statement was allowed to be used in the trial. Attorney Rabil never for a moment doubted his client's innocence, but things went downhill for Hunt. During the trial, Hunt took the witness stand and asserted that he had never seen nor met Sykes, but the prosecution brought witnesses in that swore Hunt and Sykes had been seen together (Ross, 181). Another witness said he had seen Hunt leave " ... bloodstained towels behind in a hotel restroom"; after three days of deliberations the jury ruled Hunt was guilty but they would only agree to a life sentence, not the death penalty, because the foreman of the jury was skeptical as to Hunt's guilt (Ross, 181).

The lawyer for Hunt filed an appeal on this case, and during that process it was found that Hunt's girlfriend's testimony had been "improperly admitted," so the verdict was overturned, Ross continues (181). However, after Hunt was released on bond, he was offered a "plea deal" by the prosecution, and because he knew he had not killed Sykes, he…