By Jeff Adachi
A group of state judges wants to persuade the public to cash in one of our fundamental rights: trial by a jury of our peers.
The idea, floated by the California Judges Association as a cost-saving measure, requires passing a state constitutional amendment to shrink juries in misdemeanor criminal cases from 12 to eight members. Paring down juries is a dangerous bargain.
A 2004 study by the National Center for State Courts found that while shrinking juries may save money, it would result in less diversity in viewpoints, backgrounds, experiences, race, age and gender. In short, an accused person would be less likely to be judged by a jury of his or her peers.
Considerable evidence shows smaller juries result in more mistakes and less justice.
The concept of 12 jurors has been tried and tested since the 17th century. And as it turns out, modern behavioral research backs up these 600 years of common-law practice. A landmark 1977 study by psychologist Michael J. Saks, which contrasted the decision making of six-member juries with that of 12-member juries, found that smaller juries are more likely to convict the innocent and acquit the guilty.
Larger juries make more accurate decisions for two reasons, researchers found.
The first follows basic measures of reliability: Larger juries mean more people remembering and scrutinizing the evidence, leading to a more complete picture of the facts. The second reason echoes countless studies of group behavior: Those in smaller groups feel more pressure to conform to popular opinion – even if it is wrong. By contrast, dissenters in larger juries are more likely to find an ally, giving them the courage to stick to their convictions.
A 1997 analysis of all jury-size studies echoed these findings.
The same judges who endorse smaller juries also propose cutting the number of prospective jurors that lawyers can eliminate through pre-emptive challenge. This is a particularly dangerous idea, because these challenges provide prosecutors and defense attorneys an opportunity to weed out biased jurors.
Taking the issue further still, a committee of judges is now pushing for abolishing all jury trials for crimes that carry a sentence of less than six months. They claim that these changes will save $5 million statewide, which is less than 0.2 percent of the state court’s $3.1 billion annual budget. Sacrificing the quality of justice hardly seems worth the savings.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” While cutting the size of juries might seem like a convenient idea, our right to a trial by a jury of our peers is the heart of our legal system, not the fat to be trimmed.
Jeff Adachi is the public defender of San Francisco.
Ergo, the potential for bias with 12 jurors is greater as opposed to smaller juries….hmmm the PD author didn’t expound on that point for some reason?
Hmmm…
“Jurors, as the representative of the people, hold no personal agenda during any trial and most certainly not the government’s agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, arresting officers and the forensic investigators in most cases are all a part of and receive paychecks from government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the production of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are, in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom.” Fully Informed Jury Association, (FIJA), as quoted in Lust For Justice by Paulette Frankl
The $5-million cost figure for all trials with less than six month sentences seems like a low number. There can’t be many trials that fall into this category if this is all we spend each year.
Did Jeff Adachi submit this to the Vanguard? Is it a reprint from another publication?
It was a press release.
To me this is a critical issue and Mr. Adachi does a good job of addressing it.
[quote]Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are, in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom.[/quote]
This is becoming a false statement with numerous people on this blog advocating for and saying they would participate in juror nullification.
There are several issues here. While he makes a research-based argument for maintaining 12 on a jury, he attempts no case for opposing the more intriguing proposal to have judges decide minor cases (other than $5-million isn’t much money). It would be interesting to see research on the quality of justice administered by judges vs. juries.
“This is becoming a false statement with numerous people on this blog advocating for and saying they would participate in juror nullification. “
I don’t agree, a few outliers don’t change the fact that for the most part the jurors are the only truly objective individuals in a courtroom.
“Let us not forget that the…judges…receive paychecks from government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the production of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions….”
Not a credible statement. Judges don’t get paid for convictions any more than public defenders do. This broad condemnation of the entire justice system isn’t appropriate.
Interesting discussion… my Dad served on ~ 8 juries, including one capital one. He was an economic conservative, and a social liberal.
After the capital case, he told me that if he was charged with a serious crime, and was innocent, he would waive his right to a jury trial, and just deal with the judge. If he was guilty, he’d insist on a jury trial.
I am ambivalent on the death penalty… had Hirschfied confessed to the Gonsalves/Riggins murders, and accepted LWOP, without the jury trial, etc., I would have been good with that. He didn’t, and is now sentenced to die. I’m good with that.
“After the capital case, he told me that if he was charged with a serious crime, and was innocent, he would waive his right to a jury trial, and just deal with the judge.”
Believe it or not, jurors do not have the unilateral right to waive a jury trial – the prosecutor has to agree to it.
[quote]Believe it or not, [u][b]jurors[/b][/u] do not have the unilateral right to waive a jury trial – the prosecutor has to agree to it. [/quote]Huh????
David, did you mean “the accused”?
A state-by-state matter, though. The Supreme Court in Oregon recently upheld a criminal defendant’s right to waive jury trial. They added that judges can consider the prosecutor recommendation and decide if a waiver would jeopardize the defendant’s other rights.
Yes, sorry, long night.