Why Jury Trials are Important to a Democratic Society

1- The American jury trial is a constitutional right. The founding fathers believed that the right to be tried by a jury of your peers was so important that it merited inclusion in the highest law of the land. Amendments 6 and 7 of the Bill of Rights contain this right:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, 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, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

2- The jury trial is a vital part of America's system of checks and balances. "Checks and balances" means that the judicial branch of government is equal to the other two branches (executive and legislative) and the courts can overturn laws or acts of government that violate constitutional rights. Our system of checks and balances requires a strong judicial branch. A strong judicial branch requires a healthy jury trial option. Jury service is your chance to have a voice in the judicial branch of government.

3- The founding fathers included jury trials in the constitution because jury trials prevent tyranny. The denition of tyranny is oppressive power exerted by the government. Tyranny also exists when absolute power is vested in a single ruler. Jury trials are the opposite of tyranny because the citizens on the jury are given the absolute power to make the nal decision.

4- Trial by jury is a unique part of America's democracy. Most countries do not have jury trials. It is one of the things that make us unique as a country, and something we should be proud of.

5- Jury trials provide an opportunity for citizens to participate in the process of governing. Serving on a jury is the most direct and impactful way for citizens to connect to the constitution. It is more active and participatory than voting. Citizens can help perpetuate our system of laws, and stabilize our democracy.

6- Jury trials educate jurors about the justice system. People who serve on juries have a greater respect for the system when they leave. Serving on a jury gives people insight into the justice system and their own communities, and corrects misapprehensions about what takes place in a courtroom.

7- Jury trials provide a method of peaceful dispute resolution. Most citizens will be impacted at some point in their life by a conict, such as a divorce, a personal injury due to negligence, a contractual dispute, an employment dispute, etc. There are many ways to resolve such disagreements, but if other methods fail, a jury trial is one way to have nal resolution in a peaceful manner.

8- Jury trials offer the voice of the people to the civil and criminal justice systems. If you are accused of a crime, you have the right to ask for a jury of your peers to judge your guilt or innocence. In a civil case, a jury of citizens will determine community standards and expectations in accordance with the law. We do not want judges and lawyers making every important decision; they are not representative of the people of the United States. Juries provide the voice of common sense and the perspective of the citizen to our developing body of law.

LECTURE: Juries & 12 Angry Men

https://www.publicdomainmoviess.com/movie/309-12-angry-men

This week, we consider the trial by jury through the classic film12 Angry Men. The script was written by Reginald Rose, who based the drama on his own experience as a juror. The play originally aired on television in 1954, but the script was met with such acclaim that it was later made into a major motion picture, directed by Sydney Lumet, which is the version you will be watching.12 Angry Menis one of those films whose reputation grew and grew over the years, so that today it is appropriately regarded as an American classic and is consistently placed on most "greatest films of all time" lists.

It is, indeed, a wonderfully acted, thought-provoking film that is still relevant even though it was made over 60 years ago.It forcefully raises the subjects of immigration, prejudice, racism, civic responsibility, and the American legal system in general, in particular the concept of "reasonable doubt." It is only about an hour and a half in length, and even though the entire film is just dialogue, it moves very quickly.

The plot of12 Angry Mendetails the conversation and arguments of a jury who are deciding a verdict in a capital murder case. The final decision the jury makes is not a trivial one, for if found guilty, the accused will go to the electric chair.As the specifics of the case are revealed at the beginning of the film, it seems to be an open-and-shut case; the evidence is overwhelming; the accused is clearly guilty.

But one juror,Juror #8(played by Henry Fonda), has his doubts, and the bulk of the film details his attempts, using logic and compassion, to try to sway the opinions of the other jurors to anot-guilty verdict.

On thediscussion board I am going to ask you a number of questions which, as usual, will be concerned with how the issues raised in the 1957 film relate to real legal/social issues of 2021. However, I am also going to ask you what you thought of the film as a work of art, and what you thought of the film as a realistic depiction of what a jury experience would really be like.

By the way, when you watch the12 Angry Men, you may wonder why there are no women on the jury.Well, there are a couple of reasons for this.First, in the 1950s, jury service was not yet mandatory for women. That is, a woman could decline jury service for any reason whatsoever.And, shockingly, as late as 1957 there were still some states that forbade women to serve on juries.

A couple key elements of the jury-based judicial system are demonstrated in the film:

1.The prosecution/government bears theburden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.The criminal defendant does NOT have to demonstrate his innocence; the criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

2.The jury's verdict must beunanimous.The requirement of unanimity is a safeguard against a miscarriage of justice.

Also, please note the reasonsjuries and the right to a jury trial are important to a democratic society in our readingthis week.

As you view12 Angry Men, keep these turning-point issues in mind and discover the answers to these questions:

The Proposition:After Juror #8 has solely voted not guilty and made initial arguments about why the jury should deliberate about the case more, he makes a proposition to the group - what is the proposition?Do the other jurors accept the proposition?If yes, what directly results from the proposition?

The Murder Weapon/The Knife:The pawn shop owner testifies that he sold an unusual and ornate switchblade knife to the accused boy not long before the murder.How does Juror #8 (Architect) undermine that evidence?

Old Man'sEar-WitnessTestimony:What's the old man's"ear-witness" testimony? And how does Juror #8 undermine that ear-witness testimony of the old man who lived in the apartment below the apartment of the murder?

Old Man'sEye-WitnessTestimony:What's the old man's eye-witness testimony?And how does Juror #8 undermine that testimony of the old man who lived in the apartment below the apartment of the murder?

Name of the Movie & the Boy's Return to the Apartment:What significance do the jurors find in a movie title?And to the fact that the boy returned to apartment after his dead father had been found?

Eye-Witness Testimony of the Middle-Aged Woman:A middle-aged woman (45) who lived across the train tracks from the apartment of the murder testifies that she eye-witnessed the young man knife his father to death.Juror #4 (Stockbroker) states that he finds this testimony the most significant evidence of the young man's guilt.How do other jurors undermine this evidence and convince Juror #4 (Stockbroker) to change his vote to Not Guilty?

Knife Angle?How did evidence of the downward angle of the knife wound in the murder victim's chest affect the jury's assessment of the accused's responsibility for inflicting it?

Why is important to Juror #3 that the accused boy be convicted?

What does Juror #10's comment reveal about himself?:"How can you believe him, knowing what he is.I lived among 'em all my life.You can't believe a word they say."

Why does the final holdout, Juror #3, finally change his vote to not guilty?

QUESTIONS:

1- What did you think of the movie as a work of art? Did you like it? Dislike it? Why?What, if anything, could the filmmakers have done to make the movie work better for you?

2- Do you see any issues tackled in the film that have resonance today? (I'm thinking, for example, of the rants of Juror #10 who is constantly talking about "those people.")

3- How realistically do you think the film portrayed the juror experience?(If you, yourself, have served on a jury, you can talk about your own experience here.)Does 12 Angry Men's depiction of jury deliberation and the jury experience back-upor detract from the theory that the constitutional requirement of a jury trials (unique to America) enhances liberty, due process, and justice?(How?/Why?)