Enter your e-mail to join other freedom seekers who choose to see the world as it really is... and get a free report that explains the big picture.

We respect your privacy,
plain and simple.

The 2 Forces that Work Against You in a Jury Trial

juryA few years ago I received a jury summons. And while I detest the barbaric “show up or else” aspect of it, I do appreciate juries as a last ditch measure against tyranny. (In fact, years ago I spent some time with Larry Dodge, the founder of the Fully Informed Jury Association, and I’ve been a fan ever since.)

I was assigned to a slightly complicated drunk driving case, and since I have courtroom experience, the other jurors elected me Foreman. We heard the testimony in the case, which didn’t take long, and then retired to our jury room to deliberate.

Once we got going I realized, for the first time, what kind of pressures were placed on jurors. More importantly, I saw that in just an hour or two, I could have turned my jury in either direction. It wouldn’t have been hard.

I didn’t do that, of course. I oversaw the jury very loosely and was absolutely as fair as I knew how to be… without diminishing my own opinion, of course. It’s a sobering thing to decide whether a man goes free or is locked in a cage.

But, I could have turned the jury either way, and not because they were weak, stupid people (they weren’t), or because I was overbearing. Rather, I could have manipulated them because they were in a position that lent itself to manipulation.

Why Some Juries Get It Wrong

Mine was composed of ordinary working people. Even the handful of grandpa/grandma types had important things to do, like babysitting those grandkids. That placed all of us in a pressure situation, with two things bearing down on us:

1.We were missing work.

Sure, we got paid for jury duty – a whole seventeen dollars and change per day – not remotely enough to cover our lost wages. All of us were getting hurt financially.

2.We couldn’t leave until we all agreed.

Jury verdicts in the US have to be unanimous. Either you all agree, or you stay for a long time. Sure, if you remain deadlocked for a long enough time, the judge will declare a mistrial, but that could be a few days. Most of us couldn’t afford to lose a few days of work.

So, the jurors had to all agree, and quickly. The pain would keep getting worse the longer they took.

In other words, pressure was on each juror to change their opinion and go along with the rest of the group – or else we’d all have to stay, and it would be their fault.

I’m sure you’ve seen crazy jury verdicts and wondered how sane people could vote for them. This is probably why.

If you put people under this kind of pressure, then give them some kind of half-rational reason to change their minds – without making them look like cowards – they’ll go with the crowd, just so the financial pain will stop.

That’s in direct opposition to the way it was originally “supposed” to be done.

A Lesson from the Founders

In Athens, jurors were paid just a bit less than a working man’s wage. You’d probably prefer to work your regular job, but the difference wasn’t great, and a juror’s pay made a very nice extra income for a retired man. This tended to fill juries with older and cooler heads.

Also, a unanimous verdict was not required, so there was no pressure on anyone to change their minds. Especially so, since no one knew your vote unless you decided to tell them. (Compared to our version, where everyone in the room knows your vote.)

You might think that a simple majority vote might be a questionable thing when deciding something important, but these were large juries, so a 5-to-4 or 4-3 decision would never happen. The minimum size of an Athenian jury was 501. Juries as large as 1,501 were used for the most serious cases.

(As we covered in the FMP Letter #32, governments are very rich, so paying for so many jurors like this was not a problem.)

And, it’s worth adding, juries in Greece were all-powerful. Once it was decided, your ordeal was pretty well over. You’d never have a case languishing in appeals for years.

So…

No matter how much you were taught that your country’s system was the greatest thing ever, don’t you believe it.

Rules – laws – have no magic in them. They do not supply automatic justice. That’s up to us.

Paul Rosenberg
FreemansPerspective.com

See the world as it really is and find freedom. Free updates.

We respect your privacy,
plain and simple.

Next Post:
Previous Post:
  • Bud Wood

    Well, I suppose that it’s better than anyone and everyone stoning the defendant.

  • peck2

    A few years back, in Pima County Arizona, ( a bastion of generally stupid Libtards) I was falsely arrested and charged with several counts of aggravated assault because I defended myself IN MY HOME against a drunken violent intruder who was much larger than me. The Ajo, AZ. Pima County Sheriffs Office, did this to me, in spite of the FACT that the intruder had a 20 year criminal record and I had never been charged or arrested for anything. During this ordeal, 12 out of 13 involved deputies lied under oath in their reports, lied under oath to get a search warrant, lied under oath to get an indictment, (only the badged thugs testify before a “Grand Jury”, not he defense), and lied under oath on the stand during my criminal trial that lasted for several days. A prescient jury acquitted me (not guilty) of all of the assault charges. The lead deputy, a sergeant, was promoted to Lieutenant, and several other deputies advised me to leave Pima County, which I gladly did. Had the jury believed the deputies lies I would still be in prison. Yeah! Juries can work, but it is a toss up. LEO’s lie to cover their asses, Prosecutors lie to enhance their political careers, and judges allow it for the same reason. The moral of this story is…Never, ever trust anyone in the legal system.

    • BigIron8

      I believe the new “euphemism” used by the “lying” police, etc. is “testilying”. This is why “jury nullification” is such an important part of a “working” legal system. The Supreme Court really has no “standing” to determine the “constitutionality” of anything. The Supreme Court was “created” by the Constitution and therefore has no “jurisdiction”. The “people” created the Constitution and only they, the people, have “standing” to determine is something is “Constitutional”.

      The police (and other so called “public” officials)” have no “public” immunity from prosecution and/or law-suit as they actually operate in the “private”, NOT the “public”.

      See: NC, Rodney Dale Class, fall 2012 where he prosecutes his own case as a “Private Attorney General (PAG)” under an 1866 law and won both the initial case and the subsequent appeal allowing the case to be “cited” in court. He proved that the police and most other agencies, officials, etc. actually operate in the “private” sector, NOT the “public” sector and that they therefore have NO immunity from suit. Go after their stuff when they misbehave.

      The only source of “authority” is the “law” itself and that law must be “square” with the US Constitution and the State Constitution or it NOT “law” at all and therefore conveys NO authority. Any who try to enforce such “law”, having only the “color-of-law”, are acting outside the “law” and are thus “outlaws”.
      The “chain-of-command” is also liable as “Andy is responsible for what Barney does”.

    • James

      Hear bloody hear.

  • BigIron8

    Number one! You don’t really want a “jury trial” but a “common law” “trial by jury” … NO, they are NOT the same thing. A “jury trial” is still controlled by the judge, is NOT “common law” and should be more accurately termed a “kangaroo court” as he determines what is admitted, etc.. In a “trial by jury” the jury actually conducts the trial not the judge; they, the jury, are NOT limited by what the judge wants to allow.

  • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

    This is why most sane people (no offense to peck2) choose to take a plea “deal” rather than risk a jury trial.

Read more:
lasttocrash
Who Will Be the Last to Crash?

This is the question that astute investors are forced to ask themselves these days. No reasonable person believes that a...

Close