An Argument for and Against Professional
Jurors
By Sharon Coates, PP, PLS
We
recently had a Justice Court Judge speak at our local chapter
meeting. He mentioned in passing that that some countries
in the world use professional jurors instead of lay jurors.
I had never heard of this before and started thinking about
the feasibility of using professional jurors in America.
We
have all heard stories about juries that came up with verdicts
or awards that defy reason. The internet is full
of stories about out of control jury awards, not to mention
the cases where superstars have gotten away with murder,
thanks to juries made up of untrained legal professionals. Don’t
get me wrong, I know the horror stories represent only
a small percentage of the thousands of trials held each
year in America. Most jurors take their job seriously
and based their decisions on the evidence presented. It’s
that small percentage that gives the rest of the jurors
a bad name.
I
decided to do some research on this topic. I found
quite a bit of information on the internet. One blog
posted this question to see if anyone thought that using
professional jurors was a better idea. Some of the
responses were well thought out and others were completely
off the wall. One of the participants appeared to
become more unhinged each time he responded to someone
who did not agree with his opinion.
Some
of the more interesting articles that I found discussed
the pros and cons of the issue in a much more sensible
manner. Many of the authors correctly pointed out
that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states
in part that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed. .
. .” The Seventh Amendment states in part that “[i]n
Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall
be preserved. . . .” No where in those two Amendments
does it state that the jury shall be made up of your peers
or that that the jury must be lay people. Therefore,
it appears that there would not be a Constitutional problem
with using professional jurors.
Another
article stated that “While the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized
the importance of juries composed of laypeople to protect
against overzealous prosecutors and government oppression
when ruling in the criminal context--. . . it also has
recognized that the definition of ‘jury’ is very malleable.
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 86-100 (1970)” The article
goes on to say that “. . . the Supreme Court has directly
recognized the ‘long debate’ over whether it is wise to
[permit] untrained laymen to determine the facts in civil
and criminal proceedings.
What
if each county in the U.S. hired and trained their own
professional jurors? The job qualifications for the
professional juror might be a college degree and a legal
credential earned by an accredited school of study. These
professional jurors would then be available whenever the
court needed them. The courts would no longer have
to send out countless jury summonses, deal with people
who don’t show up for jury duty or the ones who do show
up with numerous and outrageous excuses why they can’t
be on a jury. Professional jurors would do away with
the problem sometimes called the "CSI
Effect," where lay jurors expect "Grissom-like" scientific
evidence in cases where the science is lacking but other
evidence, such as convincing and incriminating testimony
is overwhelming.
Professional
jurors could become proficient at determining which evidence
is critical or relevant and which is not. They would
be able to come to a verdict in a much more efficient and
dispassionate manner. The downside might be that
a routine might set in, causing cynicism and complacency. Another
negative aspect might be that after a while the professional
jurors’ “profiles” and past jury verdicts would become
so well known by the attorneys who, in their pursuit of
a victory, would try to get as many jurors as possible
that they know have voted a certain way in the past.
Based
on the research I did on this subject, I think that it
is probably not a good idea to start using professional
jurors. I think that there would be more problems
created than solved. It is certainly an interesting
subject though. What do you think?
The
National Law Journal, January 30, 2006, “Why trust
justice to amateurs?, written by Nathaniel Bruno.
