Jury Decisions

The purpose behind this paper is to inform the reader about the importance and the influential outcome of the Batson V. Kentucky case. A simple overview of the case is the offender James Batson was an African American male from Kentucky. Batson was accused of burglary and receiving stolen merchandise in 1981. During the court proceedings, the judge conducted voir dire to determine the ability of the jurors and discharge the jurors that did not meet the proper qualifications. When it was the prosecutors turn to make peremptory challenges, he utilized four out of the six challenges to remove the four African Americans who were left on the jury panel.

Observe a Jury or Court Trial Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Author’s Note Observe a Jury or Court Trial This court case involves a serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, convicted of killing about 17 men between 1978 and 1991 (Jeffrey Dahmer - Full Trial - Serial Killer, 2012). The jury is composed of seven men and seven women who were to determine if Jeffrey Dahmer was guilty of the multiple murders. The jury begins by ordering for a three week sanity test to determine if Jeffrey Dahmer was sane when he committed the acts.

Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.

- PRO: Those in favor of abolishing peremptory challenges argue that this current process is lengthy, costly, and ineffective. The author supports this stance with high-profile case trials of previous times. In a case such as the OJ Simpson’s trial, the author reveals that there were 300 citizens selected to be potential jurors and only a few were actually chosen. Additionally, prosecutors and defense attorneys took three months to eliminate candidates and did so with the aid of jury consultants. Consequently, peremptory challenges are believed to slow down court proceedings and making it more costly for the time that is said to be wasted.

Another reason citizens question juries is that they have bias from personal experience or the media. The defendant and the prosecution criticize the jury system because the actual jurors may not understand the situation from any point of view because they come from different lifestyles (Doc E). The American jury system is not a good idea anymore because juries are not experts in law, they have bias, and are not “a jury of peers”. Because jurors are not experts in law, they are subject to be

A majority of citizens see jury duty as some sort of punishment, which is made clear by popular television shows and other forms of media, which greatly diminishes the value of the jury system. In cases where the media plays a major role, such as the Casey Anthony case, jurors can be endangered after a verdict is made (Document D, 295). A woman was told that Anthony was found not guilty, and she said that Anthony would not be accepted back into the community and would have to move away. Jurors of the case who came to the verdict would also be in danger of being ostracized by the community for their unfavorable decision; if these citizens had known about the outcry that would follow the verdict, they most likely wouldn’t have served on the jury at all. A total of 5,082 trials were jury trials in one year, which was a small fraction of all cases tried in the same year (Document A, 289).

Based on results, less than two percent of civil and criminal cases are heard by jurors. (Doc. A) Our jury system is excelling because these are only serious cases that are being heard by our American Jury System which means we can be very selective in our jury members. In most criminal cases, defendants agree to a guilty plea or a plea bargain.

“According to the bottom source, 88% of bench trials result in a conviction and 87% of criminal trials result in a conviction.” (Document A) Juries are required to consider only the evidence presented in court and not be influenced by external factors such as media coverage or public opinion. This ensures that the decision-making process is based solely on the facts of the case and not on any preconceived notions or biases. In summary, juries promote fairness and impartiality in the legal system because they are representative of the community, consider only the evidence presented in court, deliberate to reach a consensus, are instructed on the law by judges, and act as a check on the power of judges and

Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.

The courts have failed to gain recognition and rejection of the practice of excluding blacks from the jury: First by the composition of the jury panels and second in the use of peremptory challenges to remove black people who reach the panels from which the jury pool is selected. The conclusion that race and racism, continue to be major influences in a jury selection process and in the outcome of juries seems beyond doubt, but Kennedy retains his commitment to anti-discrimination as the appropriate standard in jury selection as in all other aspects of the law enforcement process. Moreover, rejecting procedures that would ensure racial diversity in the jury pool is a complication because they are not focusing on what is more important which

Juries should be representative of the community by being selected from a group that is a fair section of their community. Some benefits will be that juries that include a community’s life experiences such as social, economic and political perspectives are better at fact finding and incorporating community values. But some countries show different patterns of representativeness due to jury eligibly. Differences in English language ability or citizenship explains the apparent underrepresentation of Hispanic or Asian groups in some New York counties. We should try to have fully representative juries that can help jurors benefit from diverse experiences and

What's more, what about individuals who are just so furious over being compelled to serve as a member of the jury that they simply don't care the slightest bit about what's happening in the court. I addressed one person who was an attendant on a homicide trail. He said he couldn't have cared less which way the decision went, he simply needed to go

Orenthal James Simpson is a NFL Hall of Famer and extremely popular celebrity in the Hollywood scene. Rodney Glen King is an average citizen, a taxi driver even, born and raised in California. What could these two complete opposites possibly have in common? Trials that would cause an uproar in the nation based on the color of their skin. In the 1990s, racial tensions were at a consistent peak, and the trials of Rodney King and OJ Simpson fueled the fire that ravished through California and across the United States.

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.

In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).