Trail by Jury on verge of extinction

[illinoisprogressive]

This came from The Raw Story.
www.rawstory.com

Times: Trial by jury on verge of extinction, democracy at risk
RAW STORY
Published: Sunday April 29, 2007
Print This Email This

According to a story in tomorrow's New York Times (reg. req.), trials by jury are "on the verge of extinction" and are being "replaced by settlements and plea deals, by mediations and arbitrations and by decisions from judges." In fact, "only 1.3 percent of federal civil cases ended in trials last year, down from 11.5 percent in 1962."

The Times points out in particular that "in criminal cases, the vast majority of prosecutions end in plea bargains" and quotes a judge as complaining that defendents "who have the temerity to 'request the jury trial guaranteed them under the U.S. Constitution' ... face 'savage sentences' that can be five times as long as those meted out to defendants who plead guilty and cooperate with the government."

Excerpts:
#

The trends in criminal cases and in the state courts are broadly similar, though not always quite as striking. But it is beyond dispute that even as the number of lawyers has grown twice as fast as the population and even as the number of lawsuits has exploded, actual trials have become quite rare.

Instead of hearing testimony, ruling on objections and instructing jurors on the law, judges spend most of their time supervising the exchange of information, deciding pretrial motions and dealing with settlements and plea bargains.

...

The movement away from jury trials is not just a societal reallocation of resources or a policy choice. Rather, as Young put it, it represents a disavowal of "the most stunning and successful experiment in direct popular sovereignty in all history."

Indeed, juries were central to the framers of the Constitution, who guaranteed the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, and to the drafters of the Bill of Rights, who referred to juries in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments. Jury trials may be expensive and time-consuming, but the jury, local and populist, is a counterweight to central authority and is as important an element in the constitutional balance as the two houses of Congress, the three branches of government and the federal system itself.

[Eric J in MN]

1. You made a typo in Thread title. "Trial" not "Trail" (NT)

NT

[SheilaT]

2. The reality is that court dockets

civil and criminal are overcrowded as it is. Think about the vast number of additional judges and courtrooms and court reporters and so on that would be needed if even 5 percent of federal civil cases went to trial. Not to mention how many people actively avoid jury duty. Settling instead of going to trial is not as terrible as this article leads one to believe.

[ret5hd]

4. Are we as a people THAT much more criminal than in 1962?

(when, according to the OP, over 11% went to jury trial).

Maybe the problem is with our laws.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. here's a good story about jury trials, even involving a whistleblower:

my GF just finished a four day trial in Tampa, involving a woman who got screwed by refusing to accept her company's manner of paying (not paying, actually) her for overtime worked. she reported the malfeasance to her superiors, was immediately moved to a receptionist's job (she was in accounting, or somesuch), then fired.

she sued, and, largely because of my GF's insistence during deliberation, was awarded over a million bucks, mostly in pain and suffering!

the jury (only six people) originally didn't want to give her ANY for PandS, but she made them see the light, and in less than an HOUR they returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

that's how egregiously they treated their employee

I'm waiting to see if there's going to be a story about it in the Tampa papers

[Trillo]

5. The last several times I was called for jury duty,

it was a waste of my time.

The only thing it seemed to accomplish was getting me searched for weapons at the entrance, and wasting the gasoline to get there. A case was never assigned, and I was discharged at the end of the first day each time. IOW, a COMPLETE waste of my time.

I think it's rather ironic that in a system where supposedly you're innocent until proved guilty, the prospective jurors are presumed to be weapon carrying until they prove they are not (guilt is presumed).

I wonder how this weapons screening works as a selection or filter upon those who end up sitting on whatever juries are left. Are those prospective jurors more likely to not mind being called guilty until innocence proved than others might be, and perhaps be less understanding of or empathetic to the presumption of innocence with respect to the accused?

[Gabi Hayes]

6. where do you live? next time you get a letter, ignore it, unless it's

certified

they can't prove you ever got notification

if they want you badly enough, they'll make you sign for the letter

they won't bother

[Trillo]

7. Could be.

I'm in Southern California. The problem is for me paradoxical, since juries are theoretically so important to our system, yet if the system itself and the people directing it thought juries were important, then they wouldn't waste prospective jurors' time.

Perhaps civilization is now just a great big pecking order, with those who have authority exerting it because they can, instead of exerting authority because there's a true need.