- Quickdraw McLaw
- 14 Comments
- 379 Views
The CCBA and NYU Civil Jury Project are hosting a lunch to get input from former jurors about how to improve the Nevada state and federal court jury system. [eighthjdcourt blog] What do you think about our jury system in Nevada? Is it working? Are changes needed? Are juries a thing of the past?
I have a suggestion, stop excluding minorities from the criminal jury pool. Every time I go to trial there's a shit ton of white folks and a sprinkling of minorities usually in the back where peremptories can't reach. I've done enough jury trials to think it isn't a coincidence. Just sayin.
As a white person who has been summoned too often for jury duty, I agree. I also agree on a Constitutional/Civil Rights basis.
Judges doing their jobs.
I view one of the basic problems of the jury system to be the concept of jury instructions.
Jurors receive instructions regarding burdens of proof, standards which must be met, defenses, definitions of legal terms, etc.
Many of these instructions are only a sentence or two, or at best, a couple brief paragraphs. They tend to be phrased in a technical, legalese fashion, despite the insistence by those drafting such instructions that they have made efforts to make them user-friendly for the non-lawyer.
Sometimes jurors send requests for the judge to better define or clarify an instruction, which usually does not help much.
The basic concept lost in all this is that we all spent a great deal of time in Law School learning these concepts. When learning the initial definitions, none of it made much sense in application until we spent arduous time, through the case method of law study, learning its applicability. We then had to further study and refine our knowledge of such concepts when spending months studying for the Bar Exam.
And then many lawyers will report that they never really understood the nuances and practical applications of the definitions and concepts they learned until they spent decades in practice encountering numerous and varied situations involving such concepts. They will offer that Law School and studying for the Bar Exam, taught them the black letter rule, and how it is phrased, but it never made much sense until they encountered the practicalities of real-life law practice.
Based on all of that, there should at least be a crash course for jurors as to the controlling concepts as to the nature of the case they are assigned to.
As it stands now, it's ludicrous to distill all these complexities, that we spent years studying and practicing(and in may cases many of us still don't get as solid a grip on all this as we should), into a paragraph or two, phrased badly with pompous legalese and run-on compound sentences, and expect an average lay person to understand any of it to any meaningful extent.
One might suggest a solution to all this would be to have professional jurors, but it could not pass constitutional muster and there is no real movement in that direction.
When jury verdicts astound us it is generally not because jurors are stupid and/or indulging their own biases and prejudices. It is simply that we, in the system, are stupid, in trying to get them to understand complex legal matters, that we spent years studying and practicing, by throwing at them a badly drafted two sentence definition.
To:2:44. I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but those issues and problems will always be with us.
This is the life and career we chose, and that is the system.
I can't really think of anything constructive to address the issues you raise. Your idea of a crash course for jurors is somewhat interesting in concept, but probably not practical in execution. The time and money, and other logistics involved, would just further complicate the jury system and create a greater back log. Plus, after the crash course, we would probably not detect that the jurors are making better and more informed decisions.
As you mention, it takes us decades of study and practice to get a good grip on much of this. A crash course of a few hours, or even a day or two, probably would not really improve the jury system, or the legal understanding and comprehension level of the jurors.
We should have Troy Fox rewrite all the jury instructions.
Good point.
I've been called to jury duty twice in the last … 4 years or so. The first time, I sat through an entire half-day of jury selection, then had to come back a second day, all because the Judge never asked the entire pool any disqualifying questions. In my case, I had gone to law school with the prosecuting DA and had been pretty good friends. But the judge only asked the group sitting in the jury box any questions. It was extremely frustrating, moreso because I would have loved to serve in a jury, but I knew there was zero chance it would have been that one.
The second time was just a couple months ago. This time the judge actually did ask those types of questions to everyone. Unfortunately, I was DQed again, this time because I was a lawyer, essentially. I was in and out in an hour.
I would love to serve on a jury, but it looks more and more like I'll never get the chance.
For civil cases, I think they should increase the jury pay substantially, to perhaps the median pay per hour. The deposit that must be paid should be increased accordingly.
For criminal cases, I'm not sure much can be done.
When I was a deputy District Attorney I was told only one thing about juries: Don't put any African Americans on your juries.
@3:45 to your point, I was told exclude women from juries if your clients is a woman. Your comment about experience as DDA demonstrates institutional racism. I'm not accusing you of being a racist. The majority of society is not racists on an individual basis. Only a few "intend" to be racist.
Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders achieved a transformation of beliefs about equality on an individual basis. Yet, no one has been able to change our society. Charlatans like Al Sharpton rode in with a profit motive and all but killed the needed reforms.
Institutional racism in our society is long-term, with inertia, and pervasive. As lawyers we need to carry forward from where the real civil rights leaders left off and destroy institutional racism.
….Says the person who was part of institutional sexism.
3:45, will you give me an affidavit?
no you weren't